UPDATE: I had an epic conversation about this with Sam last night, in which we hashed out finally that yes, the Red Sox technically broke a rule by not having a trainer make an official injury visit and then giving MDC unlimited warmups. And okay, if extra warmup pitches didn't mean anything, there wouldn't be a rule limiting their number depending on the injury or non-injury situation. She also pointed out, rightly, that the Sox could've left Girardi without recourse to protest if they'd just followed procedure and brought a trainer out.
Tthe idea that MDC getting extra warmup pitches was the turning point in the game -- the other corollary to getting a protest upheld -- is absurd beyond words.
To me, if Girardi was going to protest the umps' decision, there should be some viable alternative he would want to have occurred which would directly affect the outcome of the game -- for example, the umpires call a guy out at the plate before the other team goes on to win in the same inning, Girardi argues he was safe, therefore the alternative suggested is that they should have called him safe or overturned the 'out' call. In that example scenario, there's also a direct connection between the umpires' call and Girardi's team scoring a run and winning or losing the game.
So what are the alternatives Girardi is suggesting in the MDC warmup situation? Stop him throwing warmups? Sit him down and have the Sox stand a fresh reliever up with a strict limit of 8 warmup pitches? Force Beckett to continue the inning? Bring Beckett, Farrell and Tito back out on the field, have the trainer visit, and then have them leave again?
Meanwhile, MDC proceeded to issue three walks in his 1.1 inning appearance. Is Girardi trying to say he believes beyond a reasonable doubt that extra warmup pitches is the difference between that and, say, three home runs? That his DEFENDING WORLD CHAMPION Yankees are so pathetic they need to win on a technicality because Manny Del Carmen, of all people, got extra warmup pitches, and therefore they had a significantly decreased chance of winning?
For his argument that the game should be vacated on account of procedural violations to hold water, he would have to have some way of knowing that MDC would've given up the winning runs had he had fewer warmup pitches. That seems a specious and ridiculous claim to me, biased though I am. That and Girardi's apparently psychic ability to tell whether Beckett is actually injured, and / or apparent claim that a lack of trainer visit proves somehow that Beckett is not actually injured.
All of this initiated, by the way, while his team was still up by five runs, while they remain ahead of the 8.5 GB Sox in the standings by 5.5 games even after the loss...a month and a half into the regular season.
I hope the league laughs Girardi out of their offices. I wouldn't "protest" planting a "Kick Me" sign on his back on his way out the door, either.
Sam: um the yankees have placed this game under protestMe
: what?Sam : they are unbelievable. girardi placed the game under protest because of the josh thingMe: what does that meanSam : idk. i guess if the sox come back and the yankees lose he'll appeal to mlb to try to get it thrown outSam: because he'll claim the sox cheated with the josh/manny del bitSam: remy says it's very rare to see it go throughSam: "the league has to determine whether it was a factor in the outcome of the game". and remy doesn't think it will regardless of what happened.Sam : here you areSam: "PROTESTING GAMES.
Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpires decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final.
Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting teams chances of winning the game.
Rule 4.19 Comment: Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch, play or attempted play. A protest arising on a game-ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the league office."Sam
: remy thinks that because this happened when the yanks were up 5-0, and manny del only threw like 3 pitches to end the inning, it wouldn't "adversely affect the protesting team's chances of winning the game" so it PROBABLY wouldn't be upheld by the leagueMe : they are [@!$$#%&#$]*Me : there.Me: that's all you needSam : they seriously are. like, what a dick move.Me : that is seriously the most pathetic thing in the worldSam : only the yankeesMe: on the one hand i have to admit bill belichick has pulled some serious dick movesMe: on the otherSam: the yankeesMe: i can't recall them being quite as petty and involving the referees as this**Me : his dick moves consist mainly of still playing a football game even though he's blowing out the other teamSam: involving the LEAGUE PRESIDENTSam : that's who's supposed to make a final determination on protested games
Sam: it's not like he ran out to argue with the ump. he's gonna make the league president look at it
Me: how very a-rod of them
*Truly filthy expression redacted for profanity and potential further social offensiveness besides. Just pick your own favorite unrepeatable expression and substitute it.