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.
I agree. It was closer than most are making it out to be. I don't want instant replay for a call like this, but if there was, I bet it would be ruled too close to overturn. I posted the video earlier in the thread (no longer available on youtube) and am really surprised the bobble isn't being discussed more in the sports media. They keep showing the video from the view from the stands on the first base side.
Even in this news clip. The sportscaster talks about the blown call, "not even close" and "standing in the way of history" but watch the ball at the :56 mark.
thanks for posting that video, that's exactly what I've been talking about. Where the video is frozen his foot is NOT on the bag. It's essentially hovering over the bag. He finally makes contact with the bag by tilting his foot down and touches with his toes, and by this time the ball is in the webbing.
this is another reason why I can't really stand the media. Every single outlet is using this exact same video with the exact same freeze-framing.
I'd love for someone to freeze it when Galarrago's toes touch the bag and the ball is in his webbing. Don't get me wrong, he's still out ----- but by 1/4 of a step or something to that nature. Basically the runners foot is right over the bag and coming down to make contact quickly.
And I second the notion that noboy is talking about how the ball jumped around in Galarrgo's glove either.
I can honestly see why Joyce made the call he did. It was incredibly close.
Such a correction would come with a price. If we are to reverse an existing policy where blown calls were left to stand, we would have to do it for all such controversial calls in the future, not merely the one in question before us. Is that something that we would want? The existing system has the drawback of upholding incorrect calls, but to overcome that flaw, we would also have to give up the virtues of immediate resolution.
As an example of what we would be trading for, consider the wildcard playoff game in the NL in 2007. That was the year that Colorado had staged the extraordinary winning streak and tied San Diego for the wild card on the final day. That game was the epic affair won by the Rockies when they scored three runs in the bottom of the 13th with Matt Holliday sliding face first into home......except of course as the replays showed us, he didn't seem to ever actually touch homeplate. He was ruled safe and the explosion of joy took place for the Rockies and their fans.
Now, suppose we had initiated your proposals at the start of the 2007 season. Now Holiday slides, is ruled safe, Coors erupts....and a few hours later we are hearing that the Padres have appealed to the commissioner who will review the tapes and decide if the game is to be resumed. So all the joy is sucked back in by the Colorado fans, and then either rereleased, albeit at a greatly diluted level, upon a favorable ruling, or turned bitter should the Commissioner decide against them.
Meanwhile, the scheduled start of the NL playoffs is delayed for a day while we are waiting..and then delayed another day if it is decided that the Padre-Rockies aren't yet finished.
Getting it right is harder, and sometimes may make it joyless. Risking wrong is easier because it is so less complicated. Getting it right is very important in science, business, personal morality and other areas. Is getting it right at the cost of introducing delays and legalities, important for sports? I mean, this is entertainment, not anything which is actually critical. In such circumstances, I think that we a free to get it as "right" as we need to serve the primary purpose....entertainment.
Movies tend to end with the villain being killed by the hero, not with the villain's trial. It is done that way because that is what audiences prefer. I think that on field rulings are left standing for pretty much the same reason.
Again, as others have said and I myself in this thread, this is over dramatic and not what anyone is advocating. Overturning a win is totally different. Just like in the NFL, certain things can be reviewed, certain things cannot.
thanks for posting that video, that's exactly what i've been talking about. Where the video is frozen his foot is not on the bag. It's essentially hovering over the bag. He finally makes contact with the bag by tilting his foot down and touches with his toes, and by this time the ball is in the webbing.
This is another reason why i can't really stand the media. every single outlet is using this exact same video with the exact same freeze-framing.
I'd love for someone to freeze it when galarrago's toes touch the bag and the ball is in his webbing. Don't get me wrong, he's still out ----- but by 1/4 of a step or something to that nature. Basically the runners foot is right over the bag and coming down to make contact quickly.
And i second the notion that noboy is talking about how the ball jumped around in galarrgo's glove either.
I can honestly see why joyce made the call he did. It was incredibly close.
do you care to actually refute, using adult words, reasoning, and logic to counter any of my claims?
Ya know, i dont mind people saying that the call should not be overturned because its not the right thing to do. I can understand AND can relate to that decision. But to sit there and actually try to say that was a close play is well..... DELUSIONAL. You are trying to find excuses...there are none. Even the umpire admitted as much. We all make mistakes so he is forgiven. However, it was a crucial miscalculation on Joyce's part and to say the play was close is welll................DELUSIONAL
Ya know, i dont mind people saying that the call should not be overturned because its not the right thing to do. I can understand AND can relate to that decision. But to sit there and actually try to say that was a close play is well..... DELUSIONAL. You are trying to find excuses...there are none. Even the umpire admitted as much. We all make mistakes so he is forgiven. However, it was a crucial miscalculation on Joyce's part and to say the play was close is welll................DELUSIONAL
so you can't counter any of my claims, thought so.
so you can't counter any of my claims, thought so.
Your claim is the play was close...and if you got that from the replay then you are.....well....DELUSIONAL. What do want me to say? 'll dispute your claim by just looking at a replay. What is your claim...that the ball wasn't in the mittt ? Since when is that EVER called safe. Joyce f'ed up so big its not funny. The ball beat him to the bag by a full stride. Joyce had barely even looked back to the bag before the ball got there. What the heck was he looking at the first baseman fielding the ball so long for is a mystery. No way he sees this phantom bobble even if it DID happen. He never even mentioned that in post game
Again, as others have said and I myself in this thread, this is over dramatic and not what anyone is advocating. Overturning a win is totally different. Just like in the NFL, certain things can be reviewed, certain things cannot.
I would embrace your approach with the given understanding that some things may be overturned and others left to stand, but only if it is all spelled out in advance. If they wish to create a rule which says all near no hitters must have controversial calls reviewed, fine. What is unacceptable is a capricious approach where something is suddenly done when in all such cases in the past, it was not.
As I noted, there is virtue to be found in either method, and flaws to be found in either method. It is just an entertainment, we may have it any way we wish. But whatever way we have it, we should apply it evenly, not make exceptions because a perfect game would have been so cool.
We have an example of the stupidity associated with capricious rulings. In 1961, MLB expanded for the first time, adding two teams to the AL and adding eight more games to each team's schedule. That same year gave us the Maris/Mantle chase of Ruth's record, and the Yankees setting a new all time team homerun record with 240.
As Maris approached 60 homeruns, there was a great deal of speculation in the press that this was only happening because of expansion, and that Maris enjoyed another unfair advantage on top of that...an extra eight games. The Commissioner at the time was Ford Frick whose reign was marked mostly by skipping decisions and saying "It's a league matter." The one time he decided to behave in an assertive manner, we learned that we were better off when he was delegating.
Frick declared that if Maris failed to break the record in 154 games, but did hit 60 plus in 162 games, then that was actually a different record and Ruth's mark still stood. What we always reference as asterisking the Maris mark, was actually duplicate record keeping in the official books. Ruth was credited with the 154 game record, Maris was credited with the 162 game record.
This was idiotic on a number of levels. First it was a promotional disaster. Here MLB had something truly exciting to promote...and what did they do? They diluted it by announcing in advance that Maris would not really be breaking the record. That sure helped the chase as an attraction, didn't it?
Second, it was unfairly applied to Maris and not to any other player or any other record. I cannot recall anyone advancing the idea that the Yankee's new team homerun record should be treated in the same manner. The very next season Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb's single season stolen base record and not a word was said by anyone concerning 162 vs 154 games. Three seasons later Sandy Koufax broke Rube Waddell's 61 year old single season strikeout record...and again, nothing at all was said or done about the 162/154 game advantage Koufax enjoyed.
MLB has since reversed Frick's foolishness and there is but one official single season homerun record again, but for a time, MLB was discriminating against Roger Maris on a unique basis.
As Frick should not have treated Maris in a singular manner, I do not think that Selig should have treated Gallaraga in a singular manner. Gallaraga was the victim of some especially dramatic bad luck, but so have been lots and lots of players. Fix em all, or fix none...or make it clear in advance which ones will get exceptional treatment...but no ex post facto or unique applications.
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.
