Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You act as if reversing calls would turn into a free for all with no controls.Nonsense.You don't review balls and strikes,period.those have always been judgement decisions.You don't even give the teams power to appeal.You have 1 review official that decides what gets reviewed,and he does the review himself.After the game has ended,unless it ends on a call that needs review,it is history and cannot be changed.
It isn't rocket science no matter how much the traditionalists want to make it so.This isn't the first sport to use this,you know.It has been shown in other sports to work just fine.
You are not using your imagination fully. Regardless of how MLB handled things after having reversed the call on Galarraga, the fans and the media, who cannot be controlled by MLB, would turn every future similar incident into a long, full blown controversy.
Let me try this on you:
Suppose that MLB decided to reverse the call on Galarraga and award him an ex post facto perfect game. You are the MLB media relations manager and are charged with making the announcement and fielding questions.
"Mr. Texan, does this ruling apply only to Galarraga's perfect game, or may we expect the same sort of intervention in any future high achievements which are marred by bad calls?"
"Mr. Texan, why wasn't this sort of action considered by MLB back in 1996 when Jeffrey Maier interfered with a ball in play, getting it incorrectly ruled a homerun? That was a post season game and the outcome turned on call, isn't it a lot more important to get the outcome of a post season game correct, than it is to make an unprecedented move to support an individual player achievement?"
"Mr. Texan, will future players be able to apply for the Galarraga treatment if they are victimized by bad umpiring while pursuing records or accomplishments? Will there be a formal process for an appeal? Will it be something which could resolve the situation immediately, or will games be suspended while the commissioner reviews the controversial call?"
You see, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is going to be ding dang hard to get it back in again.
Perhap you missed it among so many posts and opinions in this thread, but in an earlier comment I did write that I was open to changing the rules regarding appeals...provided that the rules only apply to future cases.
No appeals at all works, appeals for some plays but not others works, appeals on all plays...whatever....as long as it is the product of rules which are understood by all before the game begins.
The chaos which I predict would follow would only emerge from a situation where there was a unique application of MLB justice, where they did something for one player after never having done it for others in the same sorts of situations. Trying to have a rule which applies to only one player and one situation, is absurd. Without any question, overturning the Galarraga ruling would have opened all sorts of doors best left closed. Every future such incident would arrive with a crater full of controversy.
And that is why the call in the game in question must stand. If they wish to institute a new rule which says such things may be appealed, swell, no problem, but it cannot apply retroactively to Galarraga. The reason that it cannot is the mirror image of the problem going forward. Now we would be going back into controversies. The argument would become..."If they could retroactively give Galarraga a perfect game, then why can't they retroactively...fill in any famous controversial outcome from the past."
It just will not work any other way. If you collided with another car at some rural intersection which had no stops signs for either road, and the other driver was on the road which you had been saying for years needed a stop sign, and a week after the accident the county does indeed install a stop sign on the other driver's road...you are still out of luck. You cannot sue the other driver for running a stop sign which did not exist at the time of the accident, no matter how moral it seems that you should be able to do so.
And no matter how good Galarraga's cause may seem, making an exception for him would be a terrible precedent.
It was bad luck that it happened and it was bad luck that there is no practical remedy. We live with that.
You are not using your imagination fully. Regardless of how MLB handled things after having reversed the call on Galarraga, the fans and the media, who cannot be controlled by MLB, would turn every future similar incident into a long, full blown controversy.
Let me try this on you:
Suppose that MLB decided to reverse the call on Galarraga and award him an ex post facto perfect game. You are the MLB media relations manager and are charged with making the announcement and fielding questions.
"Mr. Texan, does this ruling apply only to Galarraga's perfect game, or may we expect the same sort of intervention in any future high achievements which are marred by bad calls?"
"Mr. Texan, why wasn't this sort of action considered by MLB back in 1996 when Jeffrey Maier interfered with a ball in play, getting it incorrectly ruled a homerun? That was a post season game and the outcome turned on call, isn't it a lot more important to get the outcome of a post season game correct, than it is to make an unprecedented move to support an individual player achievement?"
"Mr. Texan, will future players be able to apply for the Galarraga treatment if they are victimized by bad umpiring while pursuing records or accomplishments? Will there be a formal process for an appeal? Will it be something which could resolve the situation immediately, or will games be suspended while the commissioner reviews the controversial call?"
You see, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is going to be ding dang hard to get it back in again.
Perhap you missed it among so many posts and opinions in this thread, but in an earlier comment I did write that I was open to changing the rules regarding appeals...provided that the rules only apply to future cases.
No appeals at all works, appeals for some plays but not others works, appeals on all plays...whatever....as long as it is the product of rules which are understood by all before the game begins.
The chaos which I predict would follow would only emerge from a situation where there was a unique application of MLB justice, where they did something for one player after never having done it for others in the same sorts of situations. Trying to have a rule which applies to only one player and one situation, is absurd. Without any question, overturning the Galarraga ruling would have opened all sorts of doors best left closed. Every future such incident would arrive with a crater full of controversy.
And that is why the call in the game in question must stand. If they wish to institute a new rule which says such things may be appealed, swell, no problem, but it cannot apply retroactively to Galarraga. The reason that it cannot is the mirror image of the problem going forward. Now we would be going back into controversies. The argument would become..."If they could retroactively give Galarraga a perfect game, then why can't they retroactively...fill in any famous controversial outcome from the past."
It just will not work any other way. If you collided with another car at some rural intersection which had no stops signs for either road, and the other driver was on the road which you had been saying for years needed a stop sign, and a week after the accident the county does indeed install a stop sign on the other driver's road...you are still out of luck. You cannot sue the other driver for running a stop sign which did not exist at the time of the accident, no matter how moral it seems that you should be able to do so.
And no matter how good Galarraga's cause may seem, making an exception for him would be a terrible precedent.
It was bad luck that it happened and it was bad luck that there is no practical remedy. We live with that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.My philosophy is that correcting an obvious wrong is almost never,including this case,a bad thing.And leaving an obvious and admitted wrong uncorrected on the basis that it is somehow good for the game is seldom,if ever,a good or a sensible thing.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.My philosophy is that correcting an obvious wrong is almost never,including this case,a bad thing.And leaving an obvious and admitted wrong uncorrected on the basis that it is somehow good for the game is seldom,if ever,a good or a sensible thing.
I refuse to agree to disagree, I insist that you see it my way only.
You make absolutist assertions, yet never address any of the consequences which would flow from that decision. You write "almost never" yet provide no reasons as to why this particular case should fall on the "never" or "almost never" side.
There will always be situations of moral and ethical conflict where correcting one problem would mean the creation of another problem. The correct way to decide is to weigh the advantages of correcting the problem vs the consequences which will follow. If what follows seems worse than the situation it was intended to correct, you have a situation where one must choose.
So, if you have chosen to go with correcting the wrong, it would be more satisfying if you provided the reasons why this correction outweighs the controversies it would create. (covered numerous times in previous posts.) At least I would find that more satisfying than your reliance on an unexplained principle.
Finally, I note meaning in your choice of words. You characterize what was an error in visual judgment as a "wrong" rather than a mistake. I do not believe there was anything moral/immoral about the call, it was just a human blunder. Calling it a "wrong" allows you to frame the issue as "correcting a wrong" which implies a moral imperative of some sort. Reframe your paragraph substituting "error" for "wrong" and the emotional steam tends to stream out of it, doesn't it?
I refuse to agree to disagree, I insist that you see it my way only.
You make absolutist assertions, yet never address any of the consequences which would flow from that decision. You write "almost never" yet provide no reasons as to why this particular case should fall on the "never" or "almost never" side.
There will always be situations of moral and ethical conflict where correcting one problem would mean the creation of another problem. The correct way to decide is to weigh the advantages of correcting the problem vs the consequences which will follow. If what follows seems worse than the situation it was intended to correct, you have a situation where one must choose.
So, if you have chosen to go with correcting the wrong, it would be more satisfying if you provided the reasons why this correction outweighs the controversies it would create. (covered numerous times in previous posts.) At least I would find that more satisfying than your reliance on an unexplained principle.
Finally, I note meaning in your choice of words. You characterize what was an error in visual judgment as a "wrong" rather than a mistake. I do not believe there was anything moral/immoral about the call, it was just a human blunder. Calling it a "wrong" allows you to frame the issue as "correcting a wrong" which implies a moral imperative of some sort. Reframe your paragraph substituting "error" for "wrong" and the emotional steam tends to stream out of it, doesn't it?
I class thse hit and run emotional reaction posts as sparrow farts in a hurricane. Devoid of substance and consequence.
If I am incorrect, please explain why. That you find me overly complex may say more about you than me. Your advocacy seems to be that I come down to your level, but I would rather invite you up to mine.
I refuse to agree to disagree, I insist that you see it my way only.
You make absolutist assertions, yet never address any of the consequences which would flow from that decision. You write "almost never" yet provide no reasons as to why this particular case should fall on the "never" or "almost never" side.
There will always be situations of moral and ethical conflict where correcting one problem would mean the creation of another problem. The correct way to decide is to weigh the advantages of correcting the problem vs the consequences which will follow. If what follows seems worse than the situation it was intended to correct, you have a situation where one must choose.
So, if you have chosen to go with correcting the wrong, it would be more satisfying if you provided the reasons why this correction outweighs the controversies it would create. (covered numerous times in previous posts.) At least I would find that more satisfying than your reliance on an unexplained principle.
Finally, I note meaning in your choice of words. You characterize what was an error in visual judgment as a "wrong" rather than a mistake. I do not believe there was anything moral/immoral about the call, it was just a human blunder. Calling it a "wrong" allows you to frame the issue as "correcting a wrong" which implies a moral imperative of some sort. Reframe your paragraph substituting "error" for "wrong" and the emotional steam tends to stream out of it, doesn't it?
Fine dude,you want to argue,OK.
First,I say it should be reversed because anyone who isn't an idiot knows it was the wrong call.It was the last out.Game over.When you have the ability to fix terrible mistakes,you should do so.To hell with silly ass worries about what may happen in the future if you do so.Worry about the screwups in the present without letting silly fears of what might happen if you do fix an obvious wrong.I have zero patience for those who take the stance that we should refuse to correct the admitted mistake of a human umpire because of some silly notions about how it could,might,maybe, cause future problems.It would not if dealt with properly.
Second,your would be scenarios of all the doom that might occur are senseless .The situations like this are few and far between.The idea that a reversal would open the floodgates for daily calls for more reversals is absurd.This makes the news because it is so out of the ordinary.Or to answer your questions in order:
1)"We are instituting methods to have an official review close plays instantly during the game,so this problem will not occur in the future.Under the new guidelines,an official viewing the play would stop play and review the play closer from as many camera angles as is available,and then the same official will either uphold or overturn the on field call the same way it is done in other sports.Because controversial situations will be instantly reviewed and ruled on,there will be no need for any kind of appeals process after the review ruling,and so this kind of intervention will not be needed in the future.But we feel the mistake is so grievious and obvious that it would be an injustice to both Galarraga and Joyce to not correct it,and make changes in the system that will prevent such innocent mistakes in the future."
2)"Past mistakes or bad decisions do not prevent us from choosing to learn from them and do the correct thing when the issue comes up in the future.Or are you suggesting that because we didn't correct a screwup in the past that we are beholden then to continue allowing screwups in the future without being allowed to change our methods of dealing with them?In addition,the error you bring up was not the last play of the game,and therefore there was no way to reverse the call with the 100% certainty that the game changed solely on that one call.We can be 100% certain in this case,as the play in question should have been the game ending out.Or to put the question back to you,please tell us how you would have corrected the situation the day after of turning a home run into a ground rule double when the game continued on past that mistake?It was a mistake,but one that was basically unfixable by a simple ruling the next day.In this instance,that was not the case.Being the final out,the call was easily reversible with 100% confidence that the game would have ended the way the reversal ruled."
3)"I refer you back to the answer I gave on your first question.This will not be an issue in the future,so no appeals process will be necessary".
As far as this causing people to go back and request reviews of old plays,nonsense.As Bowie Kuhn said,sort of,there IS such a thing as a statute of limitations.We are talking the next day,dude,not last decade.Get real.It could have been resolved before they even took the field for the next game.What's more,no one of importance,including the Indians,would have objected to a reversal.In short,there would be no chaos except in your own imagination.
Last edited by lifertexan; 06-04-2010 at 11:13 PM..
I refuse to agree to disagree, I insist that you see it my way only.
You make absolutist assertions, yet never address any of the consequences which would flow from that decision. You write "almost never" yet provide no reasons as to why this particular case should fall on the "never" or "almost never" side.
There will always be situations of moral and ethical conflict where correcting one problem would mean the creation of another problem. The correct way to decide is to weigh the advantages of correcting the problem vs the consequences which will follow. If what follows seems worse than the situation it was intended to correct, you have a situation where one must choose.
So, if you have chosen to go with correcting the wrong, it would be more satisfying if you provided the reasons why this correction outweighs the controversies it would create. (covered numerous times in previous posts.) At least I would find that more satisfying than your reliance on an unexplained principle.
Finally, I note meaning in your choice of words. You characterize what was an error in visual judgment as a "wrong" rather than a mistake. I do not believe there was anything moral/immoral about the call, it was just a human blunder. Calling it a "wrong" allows you to frame the issue as "correcting a wrong" which implies a moral imperative of some sort. Reframe your paragraph substituting "error" for "wrong" and the emotional steam tends to stream out of it, doesn't it?
I feel like I'm reading a George Will column when i read your posts..
I feel like I'm reading a George Will column when i read your posts..
I feel like I'm reading a pompous fool attempting to use words he may or may not truly understand the meanings of for the sole purpose of attempting to impress people.Take the moral sermon in the last paragraph of post 164,for example,when in fact one of the definitions of wrong is "incorrect".I was not aware that when teachers graded answers as "wrong" that they were passing moral judgements on the mathematics or spelling of their students.
Last edited by lifertexan; 06-04-2010 at 11:32 PM..
As a huge Tigers fan, watching this unfold made my heart sink. I was so infuriated I could barely sleep that night. However, the aftermath..umpire jim joyce in tears, gallaraga and the Tigers showing so much sportsmanship, gallaraga getting a new corvette, and fans recognizing this as a 28-out perfect game....turned a huge negative into a surprising positive. This will go down into baseball infamy and lore and be remembered far more than any official game.
Still, Bud C-League is an @ss in my book for not overturning it when almost everyone agreed it should be. But we all know it was perfect. Congrats Armando! And GO TIGERS!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
