Should Bud Selig Over-Rule Last's Night's Travesty?

[joeybee12]

Go at it.

[MadBadger]

1. Yes, though it wont allow Detroit to relive the euphoria that happens after a Perfect Game

And thats a Shame

[Hawkeye-X]

4. very true

The moment was ruined.

[joeybee12]

5. True, and that sucks, but still it needs to be done...n/t

[DrDan]

17. the rules are clear - the call stands

what would justify a change to the call? No reviews except for questionable homeruns.

[LiberalFighter]

80. They won't be able to relive that aspect but they could still point to their pitcher

pitching a no hitter.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. HOW DARE YOU!

Pushpolling on US!

*huffs* *refuses to vote*

[joeybee12]

18. I dared!

:evilgrin:

[NeedleCast]

3. Poll: Should people who post contextless posts be catapulted into the sun?

Yes.

[joeybee12]

6. NO

So I cancel you out.

[cliffordu]

7. Maybe. So it's still a tie.

[DrDan]

10. let's break the tie - YES

[Donnachaidh]

14. yes. n/t

[Romulox]

8. The blown call was a disgrace. And the Ump was gutless for not correcting himself DURING THE GAME.

:hi:

[DrDan]

15. he did not realize he blew it until he saw the replay

[Romulox]

19. Then he should be fired. It wasn't a close call and his sole responsibility at that moment in time

was to be paying attention to the play. He is essentially admitting he let himself drift out of the game, and wasn't paying attention on out 2, inning 9 of a potential no-hitter.

[DrDan]

24. ridiculous - blown calls are a part of the game - happens all the time

[joeybee12]

26. Not with 2 out and a perfect game on the line...the guy was not paying attention...

...no excuse for it..this is not just simply "another bad call."

[DrDan]

27. sure it is - the rules do not change based on situations - and the rules are clear

[joeybee12]

31. Article II, Section 3 of the rules gives the commissioner the power to

act "in the best interests of baseball..." Yes, he can. He is given great leeway for cases such as this. Unprecedented...sure, but not something that is NOT within his authroity.

[Romulox]

33. Sounds like the Deus Ex Gary Bettman clause in my beloved NHL... nt

[DrDan]

37. he won't - he has to show confidence in his umps - even though an error was made

the call will clearly stand.

[joeybee12]

39. But you were saying the rules were clear...they're not...he has the authority...

...but we're talking about Selig, who turned the other way during the steroid era.

[DrDan]

41. they are clear - the ruling of the umpire stands with no reviews - except for

questionable homeruns

[joeybee12]

44. Nope, the rules give the commissioner the authority to over-rule...n/t

[DrDan]

59. have you given even a cursory thought to the ramifications of an overruling?

1. Lets say he does overrule the call
- the "hit" would be removed from the stats
- he ended up on 3rd - those based would need to be removed
- the at-bat for the next batter would be removed
- the balls-strikes would be removed
- the batters-faced would be changed

2. What if this had started a rally and the Tigers eventually lost? Do you support reversing win-loss stats?

and that is all reversed from a "legitimate" call at first - maybe made in error - but legitimate.


If Selig overruled, then a precedent would be established. So

3. What happens the next time this occurs - but in the second inning rather than the ninth? Do you support an overruling THE FOLLOWING DAY for a bad call if it happened anywhere in the game? How would you recitify what happens following the bad call (subsequent batters etc)?

4. What it just the opposite had happened - that he was legitmately safe and called out. If overruled the next day - then the game ended with only 2 outs. That final out would need to be played - right?


Nope - Selig would have to be an idiot to overrule that call. The consequences would just be overwhelming.

[joeybee12]

70. OVERWHWELMING? Jesus h Christ...the next picth resulted in an out...

...the game did not hinge on it...it's one and done, the easiest thing in the wrorld to do.

[DrDan]

72. no - but you want to rewrite history - did you read the post?

of course not . . . you are not interested in the real impact . . . only the "feel-good" part of the overruling.

[DrDan]

73. "easiest thing in the world" . . . ha

the at-bat appearance of the next batter would need to be nullified
his "out" would be nullified
whoever got the out would have that nullified
the pitch would be nullified - as would the number of batters-faced
the batter involved in the blown play would have the "hit" reversed
the two Tigers getting the out would have the records changed

You want to simply rewrite history.

Ain't-a-going to happen.

[spoony]

68. The question is, why should he have confidence in them?

This whole "we can't offend these idiots who constantly screw up sports" attitude in the administration of all manner of sport keeps us from enjoying games knowing a replay can resolve any deficiences on the field of play.

Same thing happens in soccer, all the time. The FA constantly "have to" defend the ridiculous mistakes of officials for no other reason than the notion that they DO have to.

[rurallib]

47. "act in the best interests of baseball..." based on his history

I doubt Selig will ever do that.
Used to be a huge baseball fan, now I can't stand to watch it. In large part due to Selig.

[joeybee12]

55. You're right...it is doubtful...highly doubtful he will do it, but he CAN...n/t

[Romulox]

32. What rule says an ump can't be fired for disgracing the MLB on headlines around the world?

You sound like defense counsel.

:wtf:

[DrDan]

35. none - fire him. But the call stands.

[Renew Deal]

54. Obviously they do happen with 2 outs and a perfect game on the line.

It's another bad call in a big spot. If the game was different, you wouldn't have even heard about it.

[Romulox]

29. If the first base ump isn't capable of making that call, he lacks basic competence

at the core requirement for his job. Like a bus driver who's not so good with brakes or a pilot who doesn't do landings.

At any rate, your "live with the consequences" schtick, supra, would be more convincing if you were consistent; poor performance by the ump should have consequences, too. :hi:

[DrDan]

34. are you suggesting that a bus driver never makes an error?

never takes his eye off the road? Never lets his mind wander?

The rules are VERY VERY clear. The ruling stands.

Get angry over the call. Blame the umpire. Call for his firing or lynching or whatever satisfies you - but the rule is clear.

[Romulox]

36. I am suggesting there are fender benders, and there are fiery crashes

The instant situation is more akin to the latter.

[DrDan]

38. mistakes are made regardless of the situation - you don't establish rules

based on situations

[Romulox]

46. Sometimes it helps to read what we've written aloud...

Rules, by definition, are always "based on situations". To test this proposition, attempt to apply any rule you can think of--you need a fact pattern to make it intelligible. Like I said, it's wrapped up in the definition. :hi:

[DrDan]

60. so you obviously support a rule that says "an umpire's call stands -

except if a bad call is made in the 9th with two outs and a perfect game at hand".

get real

[Romulox]

61. I think the onus is on the person claiming that a demonstrably erroneous call "must" stand

to enunciate just what principle it is that he is seeking to uphold. Because, as mentioned, your "you can't apply rules to situations" principle is a nonsense. :hi:

[DrDan]

63. the principle that should be upheld is that the rules of the game, as written, should prevail

I would have thought that was pretty obvious . . .but there you have it

[DrDan]

65. are balls and strikes defined differently based on the inning or for a right vs left hander?

Is the distance from the pitcher's mound to home plate different based on the inning being played?
Does 3 outs per half-inning differ based on afternoon vs night game?

Nope - the rules apply the same regardless of the game situation.

It is ridiculous to assume that "no bad call is allowed when in the 9th with 2 outs and a perfect game possible".

[Renew Deal]

48. How can he "correct himself" if he thinks he's right?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

57. Again, if his eye never left the bag and he made that call, it makes things WORSE, not better.

In reality, he probably was out of position and/or distracted for a split second such that he missed the play. He then made a call on what he reckoned must have happened.

Because if his eyes (not to mention his ass) where in the correct position and he "thinks he's right", he needs to be fired. He should just admit he made up the call after falling asleep on the job. People appreciate honesty a lot more than stonewalling. :hi:

[JonLP24]

84. What about the other Umps?

In fact this getting the runner out shortly before he reaches base is a commonly blown call. In fact the very same call was blown in a Tigers game last night but it was in one of the early innings and no perfect game was on the line. I also recall a similar blown call in a post season game last year but no one will change the outcome of those games. I even seen a ball land fair and leave a ball print just inside the foul line but the umpire called it foul, you even saw him later wiping the ball print away.

He appears to be honest to me and came out and said he got the call wrong. I'm sure he's beating up self up over it much more than we all are and I recall on ESPN yesterday they said he was rating like #2 best umpire voted on by players so if he gets fired over this then I better see a lot more firings because I've seen a lot worse blown calls and in situations that affected post season wins which is more important imo.

[mod mom]

58. He was on NPR this am saying he feels awful about making the bad call.

[spoony]

67. Groveling for sympathy

It's smart, but obnoxious of him. He should take the heat for his stupidity instead of try to make himself the object of everyone's "awwww, look how sorry he is!" reflex.

[HuckleB]

85. First, stop calling it an 'easy call'

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/3826/first-stop-calling-it-an-easy-call

[DrDan]

9. NO

sure - what a shame.

But . . . the rules are clear. The call has to stand.

He faced 28 batters and one runner reached 3rd base.

That is not a perfect game.

[joeybee12]

21. Gee, I made it easy for you and you still got it wrong!

:shrug:

[DrDan]

25. uh . . . think you made it easy for yourself

[Angry Dragon]

11. And you people complain

that your vote does not count........

Vote away..........be a winner

[Upton]

12. Unrec...only one poll option..

anyway, Selig cant go around retroactively overturning calls..It would set a bad precedent...where would it end?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. No, bad calls are part of the game.

There are alot of calls and plays between the first and last pitch of the game. Should we also review the entire game to be sure each and every pitch thrown by that pitcher was indeed a ball or a strike? Whose to say a bad call earlier didn't artificially keep the perfect game alive?

[joeybee12]

22. Wrong...

try again...I'll gve you three chances to get it right.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. ...

[brendan120678]

77. LOL...love that smiley!

[kctim]

16. Nope

[joeybee12]

23. Wrong...try again...n/t

[kctim]

43. No need

it's just a personal opinion that games should be played by the rules that are in place at the time vs. the opinion that rules can be changed at anytime in the name of "fairness" or "feelings."

You want to fix mistakes or alter outcomes? Fine. Create rules and give that power. Until then, play by the rules in place.

[FarCenter]

20. No, the game will be more famous because of the bad call

Baseball fans love trivia.

"What were the names of the pitcher, first baseman and first base umpire of the perfect game that wasn't?"

[joeybee12]

28. Who was the ump who invented instant replay?

Or brought it to baseball, I should say.

[lpbk2713]

30. It's baseball .... (yawn)

I couldn't give a rat's ass about baseball. They lost me several years ago when the rich & greedy players went up against the rich & greedy owners for more money. I haven't watched more than two minutes of any ball game since then. I need them a lot less than they need me. Piss on em.

[rurallib]

49. bingo.

[Renew Deal]

52. So why are you posting here?

:shrug:

[Nye Bevan]

76. LOL. I love when DUers claim that they are completely uninterested in some topic

then click on it, compose a reply saying how uninterested they are in this topic, type that reply, and in doing so kick the thread to the top of the forum.

[Dorian Gray]

40. It is a shame

I'd be pissed if I was the pitcher.

[GodlessBiker]

42. No. Shit happens.

[Renew Deal]

50. Slippery slope

It would be great if he could fix it, but it opens the door to a lot of problems. What happens if this play takes place in the 6th inning? Do they replay the rest of the game? Bad calls are part of the game. It would be nice if he could do it, but it might not be worth the trouble.

[Johonny]

51. The poll is bs and the answer is clearly no

About the closest thing I can remember to this was the George Brett home run where he used the illegal bat and was called out. At the time "in the spirit of the game" the Royals got to replay the rest of the game starting at that point. But they didn't just get a free overturn. The best the Tigers could get based on previous rulings would be some sort of replay of the game from the batter on.

[joeybee12]

56. The answer is clearly yes...amazingly bad call, over-turning would not

affect the outcome...the answer is yes, clearly no other option.

[City Lights]

53. There's no "I don't care" option.

:P

[Are_grits_groceries]

62. There was a precedent set in 1991 when 50 no-hitters were thrown out.

There used to be many more no-hitters on the record books, but in September 1991 the Committee on Statistical Accuracy, chaired by then MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent, changed the official definition of a no hitter, declaring it a game of nine innings or more that ends with no hits. That leaves 266 sanctioned no-hitters (243 in the A.L. and N.L.), detailed here.

The stringent definition eliminated 38 no-hitters from the books that were shortened by rain or darkness and losing efforts by the away team in which the home team doesn’t bat in the bottom of the ninth.

It also wiped out 12 no-hitters by pitchers who threw nine innings of no-hit ball only to yield a hit in extra innings. That narrow definition kept Pedro Martinez out of the exclusive no-no club, even though his ball is featured in the National Baseball Hall of Fame’s “No-Nos and Perfectos” exhibit. Martinez threw nine innings of perfect ball on June 3, 1995, but his Expos couldn’t score a run and Martinez wound up giving up a hit in the 10th. It’s not considered a no-hitter.
http://www.nonohitters.com/near-no-hitters/

They changed the rule and made it retroactive. Rules are apparently changed at times when MLB deems it to be necessary.
They put an asterisk by Roger Maris's name when he broke the HR record for a year. They said it was because he played more games than Babe Ruth. They monkey with the rules when they want to.

[joeybee12]

64. Good point...yup, Selig can do this...whether he WILL is questionable..n/t

[DrDan]

66. not questionable at all . . . no way will he overturn the call

[joeybee12]

69. he might because if he doesn't, the pressure for instant replay grows...

and Selig would like to avoid that.

[DrDan]

74. and introducing instant replay would be the best thing to come out of this

works for college football - would work for baseball

[hughee99]

86. But that was more a change in the qualification than in the game

they didn't change anything in the box score from the way it was originally ruled. A better precedent, IMHO, would be George Brett's pine-tar home run. In that case, a ruling (a CORRECT ruling) on the field was overruled by the league office, the game was completed at a later date, and the outcome of the game was changed from a Yankee win to a Royals win. Hell, in this case, no game needs to be completed, the ruling on the field was incorrect, and it doesn't change the outcome of the game.

[madinmaryland]

71. Welcome to the Sports Forum, joey! You should know there are a lot of fans

of the Dallas Cowboys (aka America's Team) in here.

Did you know that the DC in Washington, DC stands for Dallas Cowboys!!

:D

[joeybee12]

78. fans of the Cowpies? Naw, haven't seen one here yet...

then again, I have Satan blocker on my computer.

[Crabby Appleton]

75. Yes, absolutely nt

[caraher]

79. Maybe Selig could just declare that this game be added to any list of perfect games

*without* changing any of the stats. Then you'd have a great trivia question: who was awarded a hit in a perfect game by the opposing pitcher?

If they can records with asterisks, this is a prime opportunity for one without setting a precedent that could be appealed to for the reversal of game outcomes.

[DrDan]

81. resolved - no reversal

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/selig-wont-reverse-blown-call-that-killed-galarragas-perfect-game/1

[jakefrep]

82. Absolutely not.

Not just no, HELL FUCKING NO.

Shit happens.

I didn't think they did that "everybody gets a ribbon"-type nonsense in baseball.

[caraher]

83. This just seems different from the outcome of a game to me...

Things like no-hitters and perfect games don't affect standings. In terms of the team and pitcher's performance, it was as good as every other official perfect game. The sole difference is that the ump blew what should have been the very last call.

Is there even a "ribbon" for a perfect game? Or some kind of standard reward?

I think I'm not as impressed with the sanctity of baseball stats as "real fans" are supposed to be; so there doesn't seem (to me) to be any horrible sacrilege in labeling this a 28-out perfect game!