Last night’s sticker fiasco

[GUNTERSVOL]

C'mon C. Lee you were wiling to more than imply severe breach of equipment rules by Tennessee so have the courage to stand up and say out loud yes or no at this point. To not clarify now is spineless and to me eliminates all credibility of your site. I'm going to call you out for viscous misleading reporting on this one. There is a price to be paid for half-assed accusations.

If you do go after him ask him the rule they used to EVEN take away the homerun for a bat not having a sticker. I don't think it is out there but if they can cut and paste one I will apologize for my ignorance.

I have posted all relevant rules for Bat testing and illegal bats I can find. Only bats treated like that failed umpires phsical inspection and found bat performance issues due to modification. They are all in this or series thread under my War and Peace length posts.

Edited to add.... Interestingly enough the famous George Brett bat would not have resulted in the loss of run under NCAA rules, just the removal of the bat.

 

[JCP201]

What does he mean the “NCAA is not inclined to change anything”. So Chris is still not walking back his comment that the bat was retested and failed. Even though we know for fact the bat was given back and is available for use in future games. Sounds like Chris is trying to directly avoid saying he is wrong so he uses semantics to say Beck won’t face any action by NCAA which we all knew.

slandered our team with bad info and needs to own it.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

slandered our team with bad info and needs to own it.

I guess it is possible that he ASSUMED that since they retained the bat for the entire series it failed testing. The Testing Protocol does call for any bat that does not meet ANY requirement to be taken and held until the game/series/tournament is completed. This includes any of the three different tests, physical, ring (diameter), and compression, but also the identification requirements concerning the placement and continued display of the event specific tamper proof sticker. The umps correctly took the bat out of play and held it till the series ended when the VANDY sticker was not on the bat. But that in NO WAY indicated the bat failed any test, especially in light of the the sticker from earlier in the week where the bat passed the same tests. So yes this is an enemy talking head failure.

I personally am more offended by the fact that none of our friendly talking heads are challenging the fact they called him out and took back the run. I have not seen a direct communication from the league office, but have seen a comment attributed to the office that said they found the bat did not have a sticker and "DEEMED" it to be an illegal bat. In fact that is the rule they executed in rule 1 Section 12 penalty statement I have previously and will for the last time post.

PENALTY for a. and b.—A bat that has been flattened or altered to improve performance is an illegal bat. If such an illegal bat is detected before the first pitch, the batter shall be called out and the bat shall be removed from the game. If an illegal bat is detected after the first pitch, legal or illegal, the batter shall be declared out, and base runners shall not advance as a result of a batted ball. The bat shall be removed from the contest.

This rule is pretty clear. So is the language of the Testing Protocol in Appendix G.

Procedure for Failed Bats SECTION 4. Bats that fail any part of the bat testing protocol shall be surrendered to game management and be retained for the duration of the game, series or tournament for being unacceptable for play.

It is clear that they did not make any failure of the protocol define the bat as an illegal bat but added the unacceptable for play status.

Why are they giving the league office a free pass? It is POSSIBLE that there has been a bulletin or other official advisory sent out to cover this, but we should dang well be demanding to see it. This is especially troubling since the action by the umps was taken after they all convened for a pow wow. Until I see other facts I will assume they just all screwed up and owe Honcho and the team an apology letter and should send out one of those bulletins to clear it up for all future games. Bottom line, the lack of a label does not change the performance of a bat and cannot warrant the batter being declared out. You can't mix and match penalty statements between rules.

This is the end of my soapbox presentations in this forum, unless I owe the world an apology due to someone presenting other documents.

Last edit to last preachy post.... I wanted to add the beginning of another Appendix. Let's see if ULTIMATELY in this applies to after the fact as well.

Appendix E Getting The Call Right

The first requisite of an umpire is to ultimately get all decisions correct. Umpire pride is important, but never as important as getting the play right. It is the philosophy of the NCAA that umpires always seek to get the call right. This may involve the reversal of a previously rendered decision. However, the correct decision—not the pride of any umpire—must prevail.

 

[whobethis16]

I guess it is possible that he ASSUMED that since they retained the bat for the entire series it failed testing. The Testing Protocol does call for any bat that does not meet ANY requirement to be taken and held until the game/series/tournament is completed. This includes any of the three different tests, physical, ring (diameter), and compression, but also the identification requirements concerning the placement and continued display of the event specific tamper proof sticker. The umps correctly took the bat out of play and held it till the series ended when the VANDY sticker was not on the bat. But that in NO WAY indicated the bat failed any test, especially in light of the the sticker from earlier in the week where the bat passed the same tests. So yes this is an enemy talking head failure.

I personally am more offended by the fact that none of our friendly talking heads are challenging the fact they called him out and took back the run. I have not seen a direct communication from the league office, but have seen a comment attributed to the office that said they found the bat did not have a sticker and "DEEMED" it to be an illegal bat. In fact that is the rule they executed in rule 1 Section 12 penalty statement I have previously and will for the last time post.

PENALTY for a. and b.—A bat that has been flattened or altered to improve performance is an illegal bat. If such an illegal bat is detected before the first pitch, the batter shall be called out and the bat shall be removed from the game. If an illegal bat is detected after the first pitch, legal or illegal, the batter shall be declared out, and base runners shall not advance as a result of a batted ball. The bat shall be removed from the contest.

This rule is pretty clear. So is the language of the Testing Protocol in Appendix G.

Procedure for Failed Bats SECTION 4. Bats that fail any part of the bat testing protocol shall be surrendered to game management and be retained for the duration of the game, series or tournament for being unacceptable for play.

It is clear that they did not make any failure of the protocol define the bat as an illegal bat but added the unacceptable for play status.

Why are they giving the league office a free pass? It is POSSIBLE that there has been a bulletin or other official advisory sent out to cover this, but we should dang well be demanding to see it. This is especially troubling since the action by the umps was taken after they all convened for a pow wow. Until I see other facts I will assume they just all screwed up and owe Honcho and the team an apology letter and should send out one of those bulletins to clear it up for all future games. Bottom line, the lack of a label does not change the performance of a bat and cannot warrant the batter being declared out. You can't mix and match penalty statements between rules.

This is the end of my soapbox presentations in this forum, unless I owe the world an apology due to someone presenting other documents.

Dude, umpires get together to make sure they are appropriately applying the rule. If Vitello truly felt the rule was being misapplied, he should have told the umpires he wanted to play the game under protest. Officially protested games are the absolute last thing umpires want. Just because they "convened for a pow wow" doesn't mean that it was this big conspiracy against Tennessee.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Dude, umpires get together to make sure they are appropriately applying the rule. If Vitello truly felt the rule was being misapplied, he should have told the umpires he wanted to play the game under protest. Officially protested games are the absolute last thing umpires want. Just because they "convened for a pow wow" doesn't mean that it was this big conspiracy against Tennessee.

Did not mention conspiracy, but unless they have a hidden ace in the hole, they were COLLECTIVELY wrong after their discussion. I guess maybe our staff was caught off guard because they had never seen this call messed up before. The umps were not responsible for us carrying a bat to the plate without a sticker, and nobody in Orange is responsible for the bogus ruling.

 

[whobethis16]

Did not mention conspiracy, but unless they have a hidden ace in the hole, they were COLLECTIVELY wrong after their discussion. I guess maybe our staff was caught off guard because they had never seen this call messed up before. The umps were not responsible for us carrying a bat to the plate without a sticker, and nobody in Orange is responsible for the bogus ruling.

Again, there's a process in place for coaches to protest if they believe the umpires were wrong in a rule application. Vitello didn't do that, so clearly he doesn't think it was as wrong of a call as you do. And while the protest would've just gone by the wayside because that ruling did not effect the outcome of the game, it still would be noted that it was played under protest. It wasn't. Explain that.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Again, there's a process in place for coaches to protest if they believe the umpires were wrong in a rule application. Vitello didn't do that, so clearly he doesn't think it was as wrong of a call as you do. And while the protest would've just gone by the wayside because that ruling did not effect the outcome of the game, it still would be noted that it was played under protest. It wasn't. Explain that.

There is no need to protest a game you won. They ERRANTLY applied the penalty for an illegally modified bat on bat that did not meet the testing protocol. We do need to require clarification on this ruling because it could happen again. Coach OPENLY admitted post game he is not a real rule book details guy. IF IF IF I am right it is a major error on the crew, though primarily the ump that made the call if you read that whole section. It is the ump's job to know and apply the rules as written. It is their bosses job to correct them when they are wrong. Somebody with some clout needs to demand a confirmation that the call was correct or not from their bosses. Without them indicating that the bat failed due to being altered in performance capability and that the bat was being removed for lack of a sticker, THEY WERE WRONG in applying rule 1-12's penalty statement for an Appendix G non conforming condition.

 

[SuzyVol]

There is no need to protest a game you won. They ERRANTLY applied the penalty for an illegally modified bat on bat that did not meet the testing protocol. We do need to require clarification on this ruling because it could happen again. Coach OPENLY admitted post game he is not a real rule book details guy. IF IF IF I am right it is a major error on the crew, though primarily the ump that made the call if you read that whole section. It is the ump's job to know and apply the rules as written. It is their bosses job to correct them when they are wrong. Somebody with some clout needs to demand a confirmation that the call was correct or not from their bosses. Without them indicating that the bat failed due to being altered in performance capability and that the bat was being removed for lack of a sticker, THEY WERE WRONG in applying rule 1-12's penalty statement for an Appendix G non conforming condition.

The time to protest is when the perceived erroneous application of a rule occurs. Not after the game is decided.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

The time to protest is when the perceived erroneous application of a rule occurs. Not after the game is decided.

The problem there is we have no idea what they defined to Coach as the ruling when he came out of the dugout and they were playing hide and seek with the bat. NOW after the fact if they did, AS REPORTED, indicate they pulled the bat because it did not have a sticker, then a clarification is needed as to how they applied the illegal bat penalty rather than the remedy defined in Appendix G. Our lack of official protest does not mitigate the ump's administration of the play. It could have cost us, luckily it did not. I personally have a higher bar on comprehensive knowledge of the rulebook for umps than coaches and staff, only one of which is privy to the ruling real time.

 

[txbo]

LOL

 

[whobethis16]

There is no need to protest a game you won. They ERRANTLY applied the penalty for an illegally modified bat on bat that did not meet the testing protocol. We do need to require clarification on this ruling because it could happen again. Coach OPENLY admitted post game he is not a real rule book details guy. IF IF IF I am right it is a major error on the crew, though primarily the ump that made the call if you read that whole section. It is the ump's job to know and apply the rules as written. It is their bosses job to correct them when they are wrong. Somebody with some clout needs to demand a confirmation that the call was correct or not from their bosses. Without them indicating that the bat failed due to being altered in performance capability and that the bat was being removed for lack of a sticker, THEY WERE WRONG in applying rule 1-12's penalty statement for an Appendix G non conforming condition.

Then that's the problem, isn't it? He's not a rulebook guy, but aggressively tried to swipe the bat from 4 guys who have had to take exams, read rulebooks, attend meetings, etc and do the know the rules. Maybe if he's wanting to know the rules he should actually read them, huh?

And as the other posted mentioned, you say you want to protest the game when the rule application was done. He says "I disagree with your rules interpretation, I want to play under protest." The UIC marks it, marks the scenario, tells the other coach it's being played under protest, tells the PA announcer that the game is being played under protest (which of course the TV announcers would've heard and mentioned), and they play the game. It gets reviewed after. If the rule application was wrong, and if it affected the outcome of the game, they replay the game from the point the protest was made. If it was correct, or didn't affect the outcome of the game, the result stands. That's how it works.

 

[SuzyVol]

The problem there is we have no idea what they defined to Coach as the ruling when he came out of the dugout and they were playing hide and seek with the bat. NOW after the fact if they did, AS REPORTED, indicate they pulled the bat because it did not have a sticker, then a clarification is needed as to how they applied the illegal bat penalty rather than the remedy defined in Appendix G. Our lack of official protest does not mitigate the ump's administration of the play. It could have cost us, luckily it did not. I personally have a higher bar on comprehensive knowledge of the rulebook for umps than coaches and staff, only one of which is privy to the ruling real time.

I have only heard CTV reference the sticker issue, most notably during his in-game interview - i.e., pretty much real time. I have not heard anyone suggest that Beck's bat had been altered in any fashion or that the umpire crew ever suggested such. At risk of making an *ss out of me, I assume that the umpire crew specifically told CTV that the lack of a sticker was the reason for their action. I don't question CTV's knowledge of the rules.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

I have only heard CTV reference the sticker issue, most notably during his in-game interview - i.e., pretty much real time. I have not heard anyone suggest that Beck's bat had been altered in any fashion or that the umpire crew ever suggested such. At risk of making an *ss out of me, I assume that the umpire crew specifically told CTV that the lack of a sticker was the reason for their action. I don't question CTV's knowledge of the rules.

That is my understanding as well, but would like verification that the bat was removed for lack of sticker. If so, then how did they call the batter out for not meeting the Testing Protocol rather than the bat performance enhancement rule. Simple as that. I think they messed up and I want that established as fact. If the ump extrapolated that failure to Appendix G equals illegal bat then there is a problem, it is not so defined in that Appendix.

 

[SuzyVol]

That is my understanding as well, but would like verification that the bat was removed for lack of sticker. If so, then how did they call the batter out for not meeting the Testing Protocol rather than the bat performance enhancement rule. Simple as that. I think they messed up and I want that established as fact. If the ump extrapolated that failure to Appendix G equals illegal bat then there is a problem, it is not so defined in that Appendix.

I don't believe anyone, most importantly CTV, disputes the bat was removed solely because of a lack of appropriate sticker. You have established, without rebuttal by anyone in this, or any other, thread, that NCAA rules call for the removal of such bat from the game. You have also established, without rebuttal from anyone in this, or any other, thread, that the NCAA rules do not call for Beck to have been called out and the home run to have been disqualified. So, unless someone is interested in conducting more in-depth research on the applicable rules, interpretations, and enforcement memoranda, you have established the umpires' error and you have proven yourself correct. As well, the SEC and/or the NCAA should publicly acknowledge the umpires' error and should instruct all umpires in the proper application of the 'no appropriate sticker" rule.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

I don't believe anyone, most importantly CTV, disputes the bat was removed solely because of a lack of appropriate sticker. You have established, without rebuttal by anyone in this, or any other, thread, that NCAA rules call for the removal of such bat from the game. You have also established, without rebuttal from anyone in this, or any other, thread, that the NCAA rules do not call for Beck to have been called out and the home run to have been disqualified. So, unless someone is interested in conducting more in-depth research on the applicable rules, interpretations, and enforcement memoranda, you have established the umpires' error and you have proven yourself correct. As well, the SEC and/or the NCAA should publicly acknowledge the umpires' error and should instruct all umpires in the proper application of the 'no appropriate sticker" rule.

Well, then just need a champion of truth and justice with some clout to get it done.... any suggestions.

 

[chuckiepoo]

 

[SuzyVol]

Well, then just need a champion of truth and justice with some clout to get it done.... any suggestions.

No suggestions. If Greg Sankey and Mark Emmert are on VN, they are well disguised or merely lurkers.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

No suggestions. If Greg Sankey and Mark Emmert are on VN, they are well disguised or merely lurkers.

I guess I will NOW head down the road of trying to get some of our local radio/tv talking heads to pick up the fight. Just like to throw it out for peer review on this board to insure my ORANGE myopia has not kicked in before I head down those roads. On other emotional issues I have been humbled when folks introduced other facts that I had missed. I feel pretty good about my position on this one. Don't want to fire blanks if I go public.

EDITED to add the following after determining this was still the last post (hate to bump my own threads)

I have in fact challenged one local talking head who reported the ILLEGAL BAT story to national news. Will advise his reaction or lack of response and then move to the next talking head. 4/8/2022

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Update. I have now twice directly emailed a writer who published a story about the incident , once on Friday and once on Sunday and have heard nothing. I will identify him and move on to the next guy after today. I am even more fired up after the account of what transpired at the UCF Memphis game as shared in a thread on this board. Their umps screwed up on a similar call, but seemed to have fixed it and put their runs back on the board. We won't get our run back but we need the dreaded apology letter from the league and the world to know that CTV was instinctively correct to jump out of the dugout. Testing failures are not incorporated into rule 1-12 at all and that is the penalty they imposed on UT.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

As promised, I am identifying the talking head I have approached with an email 3 times as Mike Wilson of the KNS. He posted a story about the incident and in the headline identified it as an Illegal bat.

I invited him to go through the whole thread for balance and introduced my position and requested he use his station in life to get a clarification from the SEC on how they imposed a penalty statement from Rule 1-12 on a bat failing Bat Testing Protocol. In my last request for acknowlegement of receipt I included the correction story on the UCF Memphis game as adddional fodder. I have received nothing and have verified I correctly copied his email address from the story.

Anybody have any opinion on this guys body of work or have had any communication with him? I just hate it when folks won't address an issue and would accept if he can provide real documented evidence I am off base. Ignoring me irritates me. I am hitting the road in the morning and can check emails and boards on my phone but interaction with email and these boards is limited due to using an aging iPhone.

Too many times procedural issues are just allowed to die without clarification. This one is light switch. It was either covered by rules or it was not. If you have any influence on him a late response would be welcomed and shared.

 

[txbo]

LMAO!

 

[taylorvol]

As promised, I am identifying the talking head I have approached with an email 3 times as Mike Wilson of the KNS. He posted a story about the incident and in the headline identified it as an Illegal bat.

I invited him to go through the whole thread for balance and introduced my position and requested he use his station in life to get a clarification from the SEC on how they imposed a penalty statement from Rule 1-12 on a bat failing Bat Testing Protocol. In my last request for acknowlegement of receipt I included the correction story on the UCF Memphis game as adddional fodder. I have received nothing and have verified I correctly copied his email address from the story.

Anybody have any opinion on this guys body of work or have had any communication with him? I just hate it when folks won't address an issue and would accept if he can provide real documented evidence I am off base. Ignoring me irritates me. I am hitting the road in the morning and can check emails and boards on my phone but interaction with email and these boards is limited due to using an aging iPhone.

Too many times procedural issues are just allowed to die without clarification. This one is light switch. It was either covered by rules or it was not. If you have any influence on him a late response would be welcomed and shared.

Send an email to commonfan@gmail.com. Basilio has regular communication with Chris Burke, John Adams, and others who might opine on the ruling (incorrectly as it was applied).