From: Chen, Richard L
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:24 PM
To: 'sharks-all@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: FW: Protest Appeal Resolution

This coming Tuesday, we have to finish our 4/13 game with Scared Hitless. The silver lining is that the situation is exactly as http://sharks.jplsoftball.org/#game03 has it: 15-14 us, two on, no outs, Earl batting. 5 minutes are back on the game clock.

The winner gets the #1 seed that we are currently scheduled for. The loser gets the #2. That means that the winner plays immediately after this suspended game while the loser has to return at 8:10.

The batting order cannot be rearranged, but players can be added, replaced, or removed.

Please be on time. No Angel or Rich. There’s a team out there that deserves a good pounding.

Slim protested this game based on not getting enough time. The rules explicitly say games are 1:10, but the practice for years has been 1:05. That started with Fred Lingad, who was probably the best ump (on the field) we’ve ever had. An ump’s judgment is not appealable, but misinterpretation of the rules is.

At the first protest meeting a few weeks ago, the managers voted 4-2 to reject the protest (in the vote count buried below, Jerry forgot that Jordan Padams of No Glove voted to reject as well). Slim then found some way to appeal to the Softball Program’s executive council. Yes, there is such a thing – it’s what JPL officially interfaces with. Scott Morgan is the Program chair.

B League commissioner Jerry Clark emailed Scott with the results of the protest meeting. He wrote something like the managers agree that the ump was wrong but declare the game a Shark victory. Scott said, that’s not what your meeting is supposed to do – you’re supposed to accept or reject the protest. Maybe that was the basis for Slim’s appeal.

So late yesterday Jerry called a meeting for today (Friday) at lunch. Gene Bonfiglio (Kaos), Dave Seal (Sellecks), Rick Steibel (Maulers), Slim, and I showed up. Slim outargued me, getting them to focus on the written rules, ignoring what we’ve been doing for years as well as the idea that the ump’s decision is final. Seal was instrumental in guiding the discussion that way. Only Gene and I voted against the protest.

Sentencing was next. Gene, Seal, and Rick informally agreed that the triple play was wrong and that we should start with 2 on, 1 out. I would have lived with that. Slim argued that the ump’s saying “last batter” to Earl was the same as when he said “last inning” in the top half of the inning with 1 on and 1 out. He argued that had the timekeeping been accurate, he would have instructed the next two batters (bottom of their order, he says) to make outs and pin their hopes on getting us out quickly. (In the first meeting, he said he would have told three batters to make outs if “last inning” was said at the beginning of the inning.) Seal was instrumental here in brushing that off, and then added that he was not comfortable with starting with 1 out since the play wasn’t dead when the ball was caught. (I said, I believe Hitless did go force the two runners, but maybe the call was never made since I can’t imagine Tom sticking around to call them out while most people were walking off the field. Slim says, he did, and I have it on videotape. I’d like to see that.)

Seal then proposes that the point to roll back to is when Tom said “last batter”. Slim still tries to argue for the beginning or the end of the entire inning, but the vote comes out 4-1, which is why it’s two on, no out, Earl batting. Oh, wait, and then Slim argued that his videotape showed 1:03:42, so the clock should be set back to 6 minutes, 18 seconds. However, everyone else agreed that we’d be questioning the ump’s judgment about when the 1:05 expired, which is why we have 5 minutes left.

My personal opinion: I don’t think playing in a league of lawyers would be worse than this. My gut says lawyers are more athletically inclined and thus more likely to play organized sports and thus recognize the undesirability of settling things off the field.

From: Clark, Gerald J
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:55 PM
To: 'richard.chen@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'earl.higa@jpl.nasa.gov'; Scaff, David M; Padams, Jordan; 'r.scott.dunbar@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'ebonfiglio@jpl.nasa.gov'; Ferdowsi, Bobak; 'anthony.greicius@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'joseph.mrozinski@jpl.nasa.gov'; Clark, Gerald J; 'nancy.kapell@jpl.nasa.gov'; Benesh, Richard C; 'sam.dolinar@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'scott.morgan@jpl.nasa.gov'
Subject: Protest Appeal Resolution

After reviewing the SCMAF rules on “the decision made on a protested game” (SCMAF Appendix A, Sec. 7), the quorum of B league Managers have modified and clarified their decision as follows:

The protest has been accepted. In accordance with Appendix A, Sec. 7 B the game will be resumed from where the “incorrect decision” was made. After discussion about that, and time remaining, it was agreed that the game will be continued on:

Tuesday 06/02 at 5:30
Bottom of the 6th. No outs. 2 on. Beginning of Earls at bat. 5 minutes left on the game clock.

The currently scheduled 5:30 game will begin immediately upon the conclusion of this game.

Because these teams are tied for first, the winner of this 5 minute game will be the first seed team and therefore maintain their dugout and play the scheduled 5:30 game. The second seed team still plays at 8:10.

From: Clark, Gerald J
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:53 PM
To: 'richard.chen@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'earl.higa@jpl.nasa.gov'; Scaff, David M; Padams, Jordan; 'r.scott.dunbar@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'ebonfiglio@jpl.nasa.gov'; Ferdowsi, Bobak; 'anthony.greicius@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'joseph.mrozinski@jpl.nasa.gov'; Clark, Gerald J; 'nancy.kapell@jpl.nasa.gov'; Benesh, Richard C; 'sam.dolinar@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'scott.morgan@jpl.nasa.gov'
Subject: Protest Appeal

On Thursday, April 30th the B League managers were asked to hear and rule on a protested game (see original email below).
I recorded the following results from that meeting.

Slim presented his protest. Earl agreed with game situation. After discussion, all agreed to vote on two points.

1. Should the game be continued, or should the umpires inaccurate timekeeping be accepted?
2. Should the triple play (last play of the game, which occurred after the umpire announced “last batter”) count to end the bottom of the 6th inning?

The vote for point 1 came out 3 – 2 in favor of accepting the umpires timekeeping and not continuing the game.
A vote for point 2 was not taken because of the results of 1.

The decision from this meeting has been appealed to the JPL Softball Program Executive Committee.

The JPL Softball Program Executive Committee has decided to hear the appeal and has decided to kick it back to the B-League because:

1. We did not clearly state whether we accepted or rejected the original protest.
2. By our decision we gave the appearance that we accepted the protest but didn’t correct it.

The JPL Softball Program Executive Committee has requested that we clarify our decision on the protest.

Because this potentially could influence the seeded play order for the spring tournament due to start on Monday, I’d like to request all B league managers to meet for lunch tomorrow (Friday, May 29, 2009) from 12 – 1 in the 167 cafeteria.

It would be great to have all teams represented (one vote per team). Please make every effort to attend or designate a alternate for yourselves.

From: Clark, Gerald J
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:25 PM
To: 'richard.chen@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'earl.higa@jpl.nasa.gov'; Scaff, David M; Padams, Jordan; 'r.scott.dunbar@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'ebonfiglio@jpl.nasa.gov'; Ferdowsi, Bobak; 'anthony.greicius@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'joseph.mrozinski@jpl.nasa.gov'; Clark, Gerald J; 'nancy.kapell@jpl.nasa.gov'; Benesh, Richard C; 'sam.dolinar@jpl.nasa.gov'; 'scott.morgan@jpl.nasa.gov'
Subject: JPL B League Softball

To: All JPL Softball B League Managers
From: Jerry Clark, JPL Softball B League Commissioner

I accordance with the “JPL INTRA-MURAL SLOW-PITCH SOFTBALL B LEAGUE RULES“(attached, and always on our website) -
YOU (the JPL Softball B League Managers) are to hear and rule on our protested games.

I’d like to propose a lunchtime meeting, from 11:30 – 12:30 on this Thursday, April 30th, 2009 in the 167 cafeteria.
If any teams’ manager is unable to attend, you may have your assistant manager attend in your place.
If you cannot attend please let me know and suggest an alternate time. I will do what I can to accommodate the majority.

Meeting Agenda:
* The specifics of the game circumstances and incident being protested will be presented to you at the meeting by the protesting manager.
* The opposing manager may add his perspective to the account.
* The balance of the managers may question either or both of them, and freely discuss both the merits of the protest and any proposed resolutions.
* I will then ask the team managers to make a collective decision.

The protest involves the rules on game time limits. These are covered in the JPL B LEAGUE RULES, Rule 1, sec 5; and the2009 SCMAF Softball Rules, Rule 1, Sec 5.
The rules on protests are covered in the JPL B LEAGUE RULES, Protest; and the2009 SCMAF Softball Rules, Appendix A.
All rules referenced above are attached for your review.

Protests (from the JPL Softball B League Rules) SCMAF Appendix A shall apply. The B League managers shall make up the body to rule on the protest. To make a ruling, a majority of the managers voting must agree. A quorum to rule on a protest shall be more than half of the B League managers. The protest ruling may be appealed to the JPL softball program executive committee.