No. As much as Galarraga got ripped off, the precedent this creates far outweighs getting the call correct with a call from on high.
Will Selig change history...
I think if Selig makes it clear that he's doing this solely because it would have been the very last out of the game, it wouldn't be opening up too much of a can of worms. Nothing before the 26th out should ever be considered for something like this.
that call should be changed because it was the final out. they did the right thing with george brett. that didn't open a can of worms.
Unfortunately I believe that MLB has it's head too far up it's "baseball tradition" ass to do the right thing.
I would not be as nice as Galarraga was about the situation - a re-definition of "gentleman".
It will never happen.
I would be shocked but extremely pleased if it happened. I don't think it sets a bad precedent to reverse an umpire's decision. It's been done before.
The idea that this creates "dangerous precedents" is just nonsense.
The precedent is already there per Wikipedia:
On July 24, 1983, the Royals played the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. In the top of the ninth inning with two out, Brett hit a two-run homer to put the Royals up 5–4. Upon Brett crossing the plate, Yankees manager Billy Martin cited to the umpires an obscure rule that stated that any foreign substance on a bat could extend no further than 18 inches from the knob. The umpires measured the amount of pine tar, a legal substance used by hitters to improve their grip, on Brett's bat; Brett's pine tar extended about 24 inches. The home plate umpire, Tim McClelland, signaled Brett out, ending the game as a Yankees win. An angry Brett charged out of the dugout and was immediately ejected. The Royals protested the game, and American League president Lee MacPhail upheld the protest, reasoning that Brett's bat should have been excluded from future use but the home run should not have been nullified. Amid much controversy, the game was resumed on August 18 from the point of Brett's home run and ended with a Royals win.
Nice citation. I am hopeful that comes to be, but I think it's a slightly different situation. The Brett thing seems to be a rule interpretation issue, where Galarraga was a judgement call. Slightly different, but important.
The umpire in the Pine Tar Game invoked "umpire's prerogative", which is also a judgment call by the sound of it:
"Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."
It's still much more of an "interpretation of the rules" issue than a simple out/safe call, but as it's left entirely up to the judgment of the umpire to invoke that rule, I think the reversal of that call is a fair precedent.
Fair point on the judgment call issue. However, they also reversed a victory and made the teams play another inning. That is a much more intrusive change than the one here where the Tigers won anyway.
That's a precedent . . . for a completely different issue.
Galarraga's issue was a judgment call. The umpire just flat-out missed the call.
The Brett thing wasn't about judgment. It was about a very clear-cut issue - the pine tar was too high on the bat. It was measurable.
If you take back this judgment call, then there's no fair reason not to go back and replay every judgment call throughout the history of the game.
It sucks, but it shouldn't be changed.
Yes, it should.
It was the 27th out. If that call is made correctly, the game is over.
There is no dispute, through visual evidence, that the correct call is "OUT."
Plus, there is no controversy about any future events, because the 28th guy was out too.
The umpire has admitted the call was incorrect - the Commissioner's office will likely admit the same. There is no reason not to correct the incorrect call, and award Galarraga a perfect game.
1) Nobody is asking for, nor does this issue (incorrect call in 1 game) equal every judgement call throughout the history of the game (basically the old "slippery slope" arguement).
2) The citation goes to show that games when declared over by the umpires (and calls when made by umpires) can later be overturned by the MLB powers that be. That's the point of his citation (I think, since it's not mine).
Are you really arguing that a rule about pine tar on a bat is "measurable," but whether a runner was out was a "judgment call?"
Based on your opinion, the MLB rules apparently say that umps canjust decide who is out regardless of what happens. It would be in the umpires' discretion. I disagree. I think there are actual ways to "measure" whether a runner is out. Look at the bag, the ball, etc...
Do you think it is a "judgment call" whether a ball is hit over the fence for a home run? It can be reviewed, but maybe you are suggesting it shouldn't be because the umps on the field can decide to blow the call.
Is the issue of whether a receiver lands out of bounds a "judgment call" or "measurable"...seems to me like you would argue that refs have the "judgment" to make the call either way... even if it is completely wrong.....
Yes. My opinion is clearly that the umpires should be able to call people out whenever they want and safe whenever they want. They should just flip a coin on any close calls.
This situation is just as "measurable" as the pine tar call.
Everything is "measurable" when you have evidence on slo-mo replay that you can look at 1,000 times. That doesn't change the fact that it was a judgment call.
A judgment call implies there is some level of discretion. For example, whether to pull a pitcher out of game is a "judgment call"...whether someone hits a home run or is safe is not a judgment call, there are rules for that which DO NOT PROVIDE any discretion.
Sitck to football.
This is completely wrong in regards to officiating.
The are judgement calls and applications of the rules.
Safe/out is the quintessential judgement call.
Sports are made up of rules and umps/refs apply them. There are no "quintessential judgment calls" unless the rules give the umps discretion.
Just because there are "typically close calls" doesn't mean it is a "judgment call."
If what you are saying was right, sports as we know it would pretty much fall apart.
Whether someone hits a home run or not is a judgment call, especially when dealing with balls hit near the foul pole.
I'm sorry, but you are 100% incorrect. You can have your opinion about whether Selig should change the rule, but you're wrong about the difference between judgment calls and questions of rule application.
Stick to . . . I dunno . . . hockey. Or whatever it is that Peter Klima plays.
If he were to reverse the call, what would happen with all of the other close calls in Baseball history? There have been plenty of times where a team has gotten boned by a terrible call. It is just really really unfortunate that this call cost Galarraga a perfect game. Yeah it sucks, but the Tigers did win the game and winning is the bottom line.
Claiming that you can't do anything to fix a current wrong, because wrongs happened in the past, is somewhat backwards thinking, IME. If you have the ability to fix a problem, you fix it, you don't say that "well I can't do it now because we couldn't in 1943."
You absolutely can. The rule is once the call is made it is made. Reversing a call after the fact would lead to people saying "Oh, but what about this game? This call was a load of bs? Why can't we change this?"
You're making an incorrect assumption that incorrect calls have not been corrected in the past.
George Brett - Pine tar game.
You're not paying attention to the fact that this occurred in connection with the 27th out, not in the top of the second. There is a clear correlation in last night's game between the the umpire's call and the game ENDING. When that is not clear, then the decision to correct a mistake is obviously problematic. There is no problem here - the correct call was OUT, the next guy was OUT. Every piece of evidence shows Donald was OUT.
and Humanities students who have read Emerson's essay Self-Relince, can quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Just because the right thing wasn't done before doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing now.
But don't official scorecards often change, something ruled a hit is later changed to an error or vice versa? Can an umpire error be changed in the same way? Granted in this case Galarraga would only get a no-hitter and not a perfect game, but still, better than a 1 hitter.
Bad out/safe calls cannot be ruled as errors. An error can only be called if the scorer of the game judges that a player made a defensive mistake that cost an out.
I figured as much, too bad.
is some kind of official asterisk in the record book (is there an actual, official record book produced by MLB?) under perfect games, noting Galaragga's accomplishment. But Donald's hit must stand.
Uh, no it must not.
And we can hope for Selig to do the rational thing given that video evidence, and the umpire's own mouth, confirm that Donald was OUT.
the least I can do is learn to spell Galarraga's name correctly! Your response was so quick I didn't have time to fix it.
Otherwise, it still seems like a slippery slope to me. Bad calls are part of baseball -- change one, and the record books lose something important. I think it would be great if Selig would do it. I just don't think he can.
Claiming this is a "slippery slope" is just an easy way to say we don't want to do the honorable and right thing and correct an incorrect action.
Again, George Brett. Pine Tar Game 1983. The endings of games have been changed in the past.
I would argue that the fact that Galarraga pitched a perfect game, and the record book as currently composed would not recognize it, is a much more important problem in the record books.
Plus, we're talking about one thing, and people keep talking about history. Who cares about history - fix THIS problem. Fix this CURRENT incorrect decision. Make it right. MLB looks foolish if Bud Selig stands up, farts in the wind and says, "Gee, nothing we can do about it" when we all know better.
I think it's as simple as just doing the right thing. Everyone who's seen it knows he was out, including the umpire who called him out. Forget the past, forget everything. There's no grey area in this one, the call was wrong, and everyone knows it. If Selig truly has the power to make it right, just do it, it's that simple.
But you can't logically fix one problem without fixing many others. If they change Galarraga's game to a perfect game, then that brings into question probably hundreds of other games that have ended on disputed calls - guys who got called out on a third strike, bang-bang double plays to end games, etc.
Yes, THIS problem could be fixed. What about that game back in '07? What about the game in '86? What about the game in '03? They'll all start coming out of the woodwork.
The Brett situation is irrelevant. That wasn't a judgment call. It was a case where someone was "cheating."
This is unique because it was the last out of the game, and you would not be chaning the outcome of the game or how the rest of the game is played. But more importantly, I think you could get the approval of the Indians organization to make the change, as well as that of the umpire. Hell, you could probably get the approval of every team in the league. If handled properly, the precedent that would be set would therefore be incredibly narrow.....i.e. you need approval of every team affected for it to be considered.
Plus, don't forget in 1991 they retroactively took away about 50 no-hitters from the record book (I think because they were not 9 innings or not by one pitcher or something). So while not exactly the same, there's somewhat of a slippery slope started right there.
the difference i see with that argument is that the game didn't end on a disputed call, it continued on one. the difference may be slight but, to me it's an important distinction. we know for a fact that the call didn't change the outcome. a game ending on a bad call leaves the "what if" option open (what if the next guy hit a home run etc) where as in this case that isn't relevant (we know the next batter got out and ended the game).
And interestingly enough there is precedent for reviewing games the past anc changing stats
"In 1991, a panel headed by then-commissioner Fay Vincent took a look at the record book and decided to throw out 50 no-hitters for various reasons."
Um, they only bring into question games that fans want to be brought into question.
Also, you would need an umpire going publicly on the record and stating he made an incorrect call almost immediately after making the call.
You'd also need the call to end the game and be an incorrect call based on (here we go) indisputable evidence.
Again, I could care less what happened two years ago, let alone 20, 30 or 40 with dodgy baseball decisions. What we have RIGHT NOW, is a game that would have ended with the correct call, no action occuring after that incorrect call that would be wrongly eliminated if you corrected the call, and an umpire who admitted the incorrect call.
These circumstances are before us now. I don't care about a Pirates game in 1977 where Willie Stargell might have been called safe on a force out.
Here is the problem. Fix the problem, or find an excuse in the past as to why we shouldn't. I prefer the former solution.
The Brett situation was a judgment call. It's up to the judgment of the umpires whether or not to use umpires' prerogative to cover a situation not in the rulebook. They did so and invoked umpires' prerogative (rule 9.01c) to overturn the home run. That's a judgment call. The league ruled the umpires acted incorrectly and reversed the decision of the umpire. It's a useful precedent.
That's not a judgement call.
I understand your argument, but you are misinterpreting what a judgement call is. There are two types of calls in officiating: a judgement call (ball/strike, out/safe, in/out of bounds, etc) and rules interpretation calls.
At just about all levels teams may protest a rules interpretation call, but not a judgement call.
In your situation, it the umpires encountered a situation that was not covered in the rule book.* Therefore, a decision needed to be made, with regard to the rules. This was not a judgement on a play, it was an interpretation of the rules. Unfortunately the rules did not specify the situation, therefore the umpires invoked rule 9.01c. Afterwards, some type of rule committee made a ruling on the protest.
*Rule books are far more detailed these days. Just about every possible scenario is covered. The only reason the "umpires perogative" exists is in case something in a game happens that is not covered in the rule book.
If they change Galarraga's game to a perfect game, then that brings into question probably hundreds of other games
Agreed. The '85 St. Loius Cardinals would probably like to have to commissioner overturn Don Denkinger's blown call in the bottom of the 9th in game 6 of the World Series.
That would have been the first out of the inning, not the last. Key difference there. Restrict the application of reviews to the 27th out and you don't set that much of a precedent. (And if need be, don't retroactively apply it before 2010.)
Selig is a spineless proxy for the owners who stood idle while the steroids era made a mockery of the record books, so I actually think there's a good chance he will overturn the call. Which is fine with me, as long as he then turns around and institutes a new system for challenging calls that includes baserunning calls like this one.
I mean, if you're going to go down the slippery slope, then go down it all the way.
This case is unique for several reasons that are favorable towards the possibility of the call being reversed by the league office. First of all, the umpire admitted the call was incorrect, so the effect of undermining the umpire by reversing the call is negated. Second of all, the play occurred on what would have been the last out of the game and Galarraga got the next guy to ground out anyway, meaning that reversing the call would have no effect on the outcome of the game. Thirdly, as Major League Baseball will likely institute replay on safe/out calls in response to this, the league can also pass a rule stating that any call reviewed at the ballpark is final, which would, for all intents and purposes, nullify this precedent. Fourthly, the league has suffered a lot of negative publicity recently with regards to umpires, and reversing this call would help to improve their publicity. And lastly, insofar as the near-term is concerned, the league, the individual teams, and fans of the sport would realize that a reversal of this call is not intended to be a precedent and was only done in order to do justice to an individual accomplishment with no wider-reaching effects, reducing the likelihood that many protests of this sort would be made in the near-term, and replay will likely be instituted in the long-term anyway.
His batting average would improve, albeit very little.
matter. Perfect games are rare and are for the record books. The man earned it and it should be given to him. Selig has the authority, so why not right the wrong? Or is baseball to proud to admit that a mistake was made?
Selig should ask the NCAA what they would do in this situation, then do the opposite.
So...less bowl games?
Loss of scholarships.
Yes, he does have the power to change it:
"Major League Baseball was still deciding Thursday morning whether to review the umpire's blown call that cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Commissioner Bud Selig has the power to reverse umpire Jim Joyce's missed call that came with two outs in the ninth inning Wednesday night in Detroit."
Truthfully, it is not out of the ordinary for there to be a dozen questionable calls in a MLB game. Take, for example, Halladay's recent perfecto. He worked a ton of three ball counts and was afforded a pretty generous outside corner. I'm reasonably certain that by reviewing Pitch FX data or video, we could find a walk issued by Halladay. Of course, no one is advocating stripping this perfect game, even though the umpires judgement "changed history."
I'd probably feel differently if I was a Tigers fan, but my gut feeling is that missed calls, even those of high consequence, always have been and always will be a part of the game. Go get 'em tomorrow, kid.
All umpires have slightly different strike-zones. They often vary somewhat from what we can see on the television. It is the job of the hitter to adjust to an umpire's strike-zone. Furthermore, reviewing over a hundred pitches a game for both teams is impractical.
This is not true for safe/out calls. The umpire should get these calls correct virtually every time because there is no ambiguity on these calls (unlike the strike-zone) and they are generally easy to get correct. Furthermore, in this specific case, the call wasn't even close enough to be considered controversial. Instead, it is universally acknowledged to be wrong.
Fair point. I didnt' mean to imply that strike zone judgement and out/safe calls or similar, nor that Halladay shouldn't have gotten his perfect game. I only mean to say officiating is , by definition, ultimatley at the discretion of the officials. Part of sports culture is living with those mistakes.
That being said, if it had happened during Carlos' no-hitter, I probably would have wanted to see the posthumous correction too.
This would only really create a precedent problem if the status of the runner was being changed from "out" to "safe" rather than "safe" to "out". Add to that this was the last out of the game that the Tigers won anyway, I don't see what the big deal is to give the guy the perfect game.
I say, reverse the call, and bring in instant replay asap. Everyone wins, including Jim Joyce.
for a precedent problem? How many times has a umpire admitted that he completely made the wrong call? How many times has this happened in the 9th inning with 2 outs on the verge of a perfect game? My guess is 1 or 2 times (not couting this one) in the 100+ year history of the game.
If the Wikipedia article on Perfect Games can be trusted, something similar has happened twice before (see the 1908 and 1972 games below)--but both times the controversy revolved around ball-and-strike calls. Yesterday was the tenth time a perfect game had been spoiled after 26 outs.
See this New York Times article from yesterday for some details on the Milt Pappas case from 1972.
On ten occasions in Major League Baseball history, a perfect game has been spoiled when the batter representing what would have been the third and final out in the ninth inning reached base. Unless otherwise noted, the pitcher in question finished and won the game without allowing any more baserunners:
- On July 4, 1908, Hooks Wiltse of the New York Giants hit Philadelphia Phillies pitcher George McQuillan on a 2–2 count in a scoreless game—the only time a 0–0 perfect game has been broken up by the 27th batter. Umpire Cy Rigler later admitted that he should have called the previous pitch strike 3. Wiltse pitched on, winning 1–0; his ten-inning no-hitter set a record for longest complete game no-hitter that has been tied twice but never broken.
- On August 5, 1932, Tommy Bridges of the Detroit Tigers gave up a pinch-hit single to the Washington Senators' Dave Harris.
- On June 27, 1958, Billy Pierce of the Chicago White Sox gave up a double, which landed just inches in fair territory, on his first pitch to Senators pinch hitter Ed Fitz Gerald.
- On September 2, 1972, Milt Pappas of the Chicago Cubs walked San Diego Padres pinch hitter Larry Stahl on a borderline 3–2 pitch. Pappas finished with a no-hitter. The umpire, Bruce Froemming, was in his second year; he went on to a 37-year career in which he umpired a record 11 no-hitters. Pappas believed he had struck out Stahl, and years later continued to bear ill will toward Froemming.
- On April 15, 1983, Milt Wilcox of the Tigers surrendered a pinch-hit single to the White Sox' Jerry Hairston, Sr.
- On May 2, 1988, Ron Robinson of the Cincinnati Reds gave up a single to the Montreal Expos' Wallace Johnson. Robinson then allowed a two-run homer to Tim Raines and was removed from the game. The final score was 3–2, with Robinson the winner. (Robinson's teammate Tom Browning threw his perfect game later that season.)
- On August 4, 1989, Dave Stieb of the Toronto Blue Jays gave up a double to the New York Yankees' Roberto Kelly, followed by an RBI single by Steve Sax. Stieb finished with a 2–1 victory.
- On April 20, 1990, Brian Holman of the Seattle Mariners gave up a home run to Ken Phelps of the Oakland Athletics.
- On September 2, 2001, Mike Mussina of the Yankees gave up a two-strike single to Boston Red Sox pinch hitter Carl Everett.
My concern with the precedent issue is that Selig would have to make it explicitly clear that this reversal only applies to safe-to-out conversions at the end of perfect games when replays prove irrefutably that the umpire made a bad call. no balls and strikes, no catch/no catch, just yes-no on a tag at 1st base. I know that sounds silly, but otherwise you'll hear every team complain at the end of a game about a missed strike or ball, especially toward the end of the year when teams are battling for their playoff lives. But I agree that in this case, reversal makes sense.
League Baseball to join the 21st century. The man earned it; the man deserves it; give it to him. Why is it so hard (for baseball) to admit that a mistake was made? It is the epitomy of arrogance AND ignorance.
Slightly OT for this thread, but here's how I'd do instant replay... Just like the NFL.
Each team gets two challenges on anything other than balls and strikes. Everything from the ninth inning on comes from the booth.
An old barbershop on S. State Street, I think it was the Coach and Four, had this infamous moment in sports history taken from a slightly different angle. It showed that the ref had a clear view of not only the fumble, but the runner's distance from the goal line when the ball fell from his grasp. Bo had signed the photo, but also circled the ref in the picture, adding the caption, "Is this man blind?"
God, I loved Bo.
The question is: will he use it? If this was HS, college, or Little League ball, the call wouldn't be reversed. Selig now has a chance to prove that his product is better than the aforementioned ones. I hope he does it, and the national feedback has me feeling better about the chances of him doing so than I did last night, but part of me still thinks that he will stick to old school thinking and give a lame excuse about "preserving the integrity of the game."
change it--he's an old-time moron.
MLB deliberating on whether to review the call.
or Selig as the case may be.
Why not just leave the game record intact, and have them just declare that it was a perfect game? And that the game will appear on the list of perfect games, be recognized at the hall of fame, etc.
A Perfect Game is really just a concept. Sure it would be odd for someone to have a perfect game and if you look at the box score for that game see a hit allowed. But so what? This game will always be remembered as "that game where Joyce fucked up."
A perfect game is simply recognition, it isn't itself an event in the game like a ball or strike. If baseball can just declare that they consider the game perfect, then it was.
I saw the replay and Galaragga got robed, but my first reaction was so. I know in MLB history a no hitter is a big deal, but in reality this was a baseball game. The final score wasn’t even affected.
I was mad about the 2001 UM-MSU game, which was basically the same situation, but the bottom line is sports should be just a fun diversion, nothing else. It's sad that we take it so seriously.
MLB should change the call. Who cares about precedence? It's the right thing to do.
4.19 PROTESTING GAMES. 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.
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.
The Brett example was a misapplication of a rule. The rulebook has accounted for this and is pretty clear cut about it. Also, unless Leyland filed the protest right after the call, it can't be protested.
Another thing with regards to the "last out" argument. Say The Indians had come back and won the game after the botched call. Then what? You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but this is a slippery slope and does set a precedent that can lead to major problems later. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last blown call that has major consequences. It's unfortunate, but it really can't be changed.
wouldn't a perfect game really consist of 81 pitches, each batter striking out on three pitches?
and you listen to Joyce speak after he (Joyce) reviewed the video replay, it's a no brainer. The man said he blew the call. He knows it and so does the rest of the world. Galaragga busted his butt out there last night. He pitched a perfect game and it deserves to go into the record books as such.
that he'd lose out on a perfect game that way. I was following the game though ESPN's gamecast last night so I didn't find out until later that the "infield hit" was actually due to a bad call... really sad and I doubt Selig will overturn it.