Now, it is obvious the umpire screwed up. The replay clearly shows that. I wonder, though, why Mike Scioscia did not play under protest. Isn't this a protestable play? Read Section 4.19 from MLB Rules:
"Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game when a manager claims that an umpire's 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 team's chances of winning the game. 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 is made or a runner is retired. A protest arising on a game ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the League Office."So as long as the umpires ruling does not adhere to league rules and was not a judgment call then it should be protestable. This game should have been played under protest.
Now, Tim McClelland, the umpire in questions, states that he thought Robinson Cano was on third base; therefore making him the safe player on the base paths. Is that considered a judgment call by the umpire, or non-adherence to the rules? Does anybody know the answer?