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.
How is that? There is some difference between pitching a perfect game and setting a new homerun record which demands that they be treated differently? They are both individual player achievements. Which one is the apple and which one is the orange? They look like two chunks of fruit to me for our purposes.
They arent even close to the same..one is a human blunder and the other is just a record interpretation..what in the world do they have to do with each other? Although, I too liked your post.
Honestly you can't sit there with a straight face and say that. Right now, this is a "once-in-a-generation," that is, until the next one comes along. When the commissioner starts overruling umpire judgement calls, the cat is out of the bag, and there will be incessant whining down the line when other situations arise. Count on it.
Obviously, this ruling would have to set a replay situation in motion in the future. To be honest all calls in the 9th inning and on should be reviewed (sans balls and strikes). No game or personal record should be decided by the umpires. I bet they'd agree too. This incident might get the ball rolling on a positive change to the game.
Your response is inadequate, you fail to present the nature of the difference which requires treating the events in a different manner. Your argument is akin to arguing that people 6'4" and taller should get different treatment in our courts of law because they are taller...but you fail to provide the reasons why this should be the case.
What is the supposed distinction between a seasonal record and a single game record which mandates a unique approach to one but not the other?
What is required here of you, if you wish your point to seem to have validity, is an explanation as to why it is okay to make exceptions in order to preserve this particular record, but not okay to do so for another particular record. Simply pointing out the obvious differences does not help your cause, you may as well write "One involved hitting the ball while the other involved throwing the ball."
We need the "why" of the matter.
Your last sentence above is an irrelevancy...in neither case, Maris nor Gallaraga, was the issue of a game outcome at stake.
So you don't see the difference between a season long record and a single blown call--and the different options this presents the MLB in how to react? Sorry, I will not bend over backward to translate that into 15 different long drawn out metaphors for you. I have spoken my piece in this thread for 10 pages, go back and read it if you are so concerned about the validity of my point.
Last edited by Orangeish; 06-03-2010 at 08:21 PM..
They arent even close to the same..one is a human blunder and the other is just a record interpretation..what in the world do they have to do with each other? Although, I too liked your post.
Huh? Record interpretation is not subject to human blunder? Frick didn't err by creating a rule which was enforced against one player and one record, but not applied to anyone else or any other record?
What they have to do with one another is scorchingly obvious....they are both individual player accomplishments. Either they stand/fall based on what happens on the field alone, or they are subject to intervention by the commissioner. I have been asking Orange to explain what the critical difference is supposed to be, perhaps he has something which makes sense.
As I pointed out to Orange, what is needed here is not you pointing to cosmetic differences, but explaining the difference as it relates to whether or not the commissioner should intervene in the establishment or failure of individual player records. "One is pink and one is blue" doesn't do it.
Obviously, this ruling would have to set a replay situation in motion in the future. To be honest all calls in the 9th inning and on should be reviewed (sans balls and strikes). No game or personal record should be decided by the umpires. I bet they'd agree too. This incident might get the ball rolling on a positive change to the game.
The replay rules are probably going to change now anyways. No need to go back and correct what's been done in the past.
Umpires decide games and personal records all of the time. It's part of the game, and has been for over a century since the beginning. If the game is going to progress past that tradition, fine, but it doesn't make sense to pick out one missed call and change it just because it was more widely publicized than all others.
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
How is it a "phantom" bobble? You can see it in the replay.
So you don't see the difference between a season long record and a single blown call--and the different options this presents the MLB in how to react? Sorry, I will not bend over backward to translate that into 15 different long drawn out metaphors for you. I have spoken my piece in this thread for 10 pages, go back and read it if you are so concerned about the validity of my point. But as you have shown in your other threads you will read into one little part, play it off as you are an expert, then ultimately, get called on it (I think you know what thread I am referring to). Cheerio
I interpret your response as "I don't have an answer, so rather than admit that you are correct, I will fluff/bluff/insult my way out of a direct response." You can't be feeling too proud of that.
Some reason I should not interpret it that way?
In relation to what we are discussing...whether or not the commissioner should get involved in the setting of, or failure to set, some individual record,,obviously there is no critical difference.
Or at least obviously you have not been able to think what it might be so far.
I interpret your response as "I don't have an answer, so rather than admit that you are correct, I will fluff/bluff/insult my way out of a direct response." You can't be feeling too proud of that.
Some reason I should not interpret it that way?
In relation to what we are discussing...whether or not the commissioner should get involved in the setting of, or failure to set, some individual record,,obviously there is no critical difference.
Or at least obviously you have not been able to think what it might be so far.
You are correct in relation to the insult, and I removed it. I apologize.
Ok, so I think that a leader/owner of any type of league, business or tribe should have the ability to correct wrong doings. If there is a gross injustice you have the unique ability to do so, that so often we do not have IRL. You can right a wrong, you can say, hey, we got it wrong, this is about as extreme example as you can get, and it came down to one instant of human error. Set the precedent, when you reverse this that this is not the normal and obviously this is an extreme situation.
The reason it won't happen is because of the fear, which I hold to be irrational, that it will lead to baseball having to overturn every close call. I do not see it that way, as I think strong leadership could prevent this. I never actually thought it would happen, fwiw, just my personal belief that it would not destroy baseball and it would set a wrong, right.
I feel very confident saying that baseball expands its replay rules soon, which for me, is good enough, but I still feel bad for all parties involved.
Honestly you can't sit there with a straight face and say that. Right now, this is a "once-in-a-generation incident," that is, until the next one comes along. When the commissioner starts overruling umpire judgement calls, the cat is out of the bag, and there will be incessant whining down the line when other situations arise. Count on it.
What next one? AFAIK, this is only the second time in the history of MLB that a perfect game has ended on a questionable call on the 27th out. That sounds like once in a generation, maybe once in a lifetime to me.
There's no can of worms because: (a) For umpiring mistakes that occur prior to the final out, the bell can't be unrung. (b) For umpiring mistakes that occur on the final out and change the outcome of the game, the bell also can't be unrung. This is the unusual circumstance of a mistake that occurred on the final out but did not affect the outcome; most of the time, nobody cares about such errors, but this is a singular case because it robbed Galarraga of an "official" perfect game. That's not a scenario that's likely to recur and is easily distinguishable from other umpiring errors that were not reversed.
Furthermore, MLB will undoubtedly be compelled to institute instant replay soon. Once we have instant replay, this entire discussion will be moot. So why should we worry about setting a "bad" precedent when the precedent will soon be rendered obsolete by instant replay?
The reason it won't happen is because of the fear, which I hold to be irrational, that it will lead to baseball having to overturn every close call.
.
There are elements involved which will not be able to be contolled by MLB. If Selig had overturned the call and generated an ex post facto perfect game, whether that precedent was followed in future similar cases, or not followed, or sometimes followed but not other times, we will still have precedent and it will continue to serve as the basis for controversy and arguments about each case which arises. "But the commissioner overruled the ump in Gallaraga's perfect game" will always be there as the lead rationalization for whatever reversal advocacy is being advanced. It will become the central comparative and MLB will always be stuck having to explain the difference between the case before them and Gallaraga's situation.
Outcomes from such a chaotic approach will be unpredictable because they will be random. The sorts of uncritical differences which you advanced earlier will be dragged out and offered. There obviously will be no moral right or wrong, it is just the rules of a business run game. So, we will be delivered into a world of chaos and random outcomes.
Is that what we want when it is easily preventable? I think that we are better off with a system where the commissioner's ruling can be reliably predicted rather than one which sets things up for people to be screaming "unfair!" each time they fail to get the Gallaraga treatment.
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.
