Baseball and a Living Constitution
Last night, the Phillies v. Marlins game erupted into controversy. In the sixth inning, Hunter Pence, with Ryan Howard on first, hit a ball into deep right field. The Marlins' Right Fielder, Bryan Petersen, jumped up to catch the ball, but his glove got hit by a fan reaching outward. Umpire Joe West gave Pence a ground rule double due to interference.
After Marlins Manager Jack McKeon came storming on the field, the umpires decided to review the call. Once having looked over a replay, West ruled that the ball would have been caught otherwise, and called Pence out.
This all would seem run of the mill - baseball introduced the instant replay, right? Well, instant replay, by MLB rules, is only permitted when reviewing a home run call. West, on his own accord, expanded this power to the ground-rule double.
Joe West was probably following the intent of the replay rule - to insure a more accurate, better called game. But, the letter is clear. It's for home runs only. The game is currently under review after Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel filed a protest. Let's see if Bud Seelig is a Scalia or a Ginsberg...
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
I read this out loud to my apolitical/left-leaning fiance, who's a baseball buff. I left off the title and the last sentence when reading it to him, which prompted him to ask, "Where did you find this? Ricochet?" When I nodded in the affirmative, he responded, "Hm. I'm surprised there's no mention of Supreme Court activism or something." Me, grinning: "Oh, of course there is. I just left that part off..."
May '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
"Would have been caught otherwise"!?!
This is more like a police officer making an extralegal arrest on the hope that an activist court would uphold it by interpreting the law more broadly.
It does highlight an interesting challenge though, which is to make reasonable rules that don't provide bad incentives to fans. If fan interference turns outs into groundrule doubles, why shouldn't home fans reach over the fence?
Jan '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
As a Phillies fan, I'm way ahead of this story. Mark Wilson got it right.
The difference is that an instant replay about whether a ball was fair or foul, or whether it was a home run, is a review of what actually happened. What might have happened if all continued as the umpires expected is not an issue that the umpires have a right to decide.
The play happened at the Florida Marlins' park. As soon as the fan interfered, the play was dead. What Joe West wound up doing (as Mark pointed out) is to give the home fans incentive to interfere. Any near-home-run ball hit by the visiting team should be swatted away, because (if we follow Joe West) the umpires can assume that it would have been caught.
Instant replay can only be used to review reality, not what might have happened.
May '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
KC Mulville:
The play happened at the Florida Marlins' park. As soon as the fan interfered, the play was dead. What Joe West wound up doing (as Mark pointed out) is to give the home fans incentive to interfere. Any near-home-run ball hit by the visiting team should be swatted away, because (if we follow Joe West) the umpires can assume that it would have been caught.
But to not make such a call gives the fans the incentive to interfere with home team balls that would otherwise be caught, turning them into groundrule doubles.
Apr '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
So the only way to call this play without giving the fans incentive to interfere would be to call it dead and redo the at bat. Agree? And then get rid of the front rows at every stadium.
Jun '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Joe West is a wind bag who loves attention on the field. To quote the great Ozzie Guillen regarding Joe West:
"He's a ------- -------, that's what he is"
and
"He thinks he's the ---- in the field. People pay to watch ----ing players play, not to see umpires and managers. I don't see any people say, 'I'm going to see Ozzie Guillen manage or Joe West ----ing umpire.'''
Apr '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
This does seem like a conflict of two rules. By making the initial call of GRD instead of HR, the ump created the situation where review was disallowed. Similar to the coach's challenge in football, sometimes the rules about replay get messed up by an initial bad call. So should we have automatic review of all hits? It wouldn't take much to have an extra ump watching HD views of every hit and pitch.
May '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Disagree. When the visiting team hits a homerun, a redo is exactly what the home fans would want.
Jun '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
From official MLB rules:
Rule 3.16: When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference. APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
The instant replay rule on HR boundaries allows for the umpire to rule on fair/foul, over the wall, and interference.
Jan '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
That's what's interesting here. The game was played at the Marlins' home park, but the fan who interfered was wearing a Phillies jersey. The assumption was that the fan was trying to help the Phillies, and the Phillies were penalized. (For the record, the Phils are only arguing that the play shouldn't have been reviewed, not what the outcome of the review should have been.)
But the fan interference rules state that the batter should be called out, as soon as the interference happens. There is no guessing as to the fan's motivation - the rule is that all interference is immediately ruled out. What if, as normally happens, the fan who interfered was rooting for the home team? That gives a home-team fan the incentive to interfere with any ball hit by the visiting team.
Jun '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
MLB will rule that West and his crew acted correctly according to the rule book. The umpire, by rule, "shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference." As to whether the replay rule allowed that particular play to be reviewed, it did. It doesn't matter whether it was called a ground rule double, home run, or out on the field. The fact that it was a play near the top of the wall made it reviewable-- at the umpire's discretion-- and spectator interference certainly was an allowable ruling under the replay rules.
I'm no fan of Country Joe West as an umpire but he won't be overruled and shouldn't be.
Dec '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Football season has started. Why are people still paying attention to baseball?
Jun '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
It's a conundrum...but being a Royals fan, baseball means little to me anymore. Ho hum.
May '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Because other parts of the country actually have baseball teams. =)
Jan '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
It's September. Football is still raw, but baseball is ripe in September.
Well, usually. This year, all of the races have been decided.
Hey ... maybe this is a Bud Selig plot to keep baseball in the public mind until October, when the playoffs start ... hmmmm ...
May '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Harry, you're only making it harder for us to adjudicate this impartially when you include a photo of the umpire--who looks just like Michael Moore.
Dec '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
KC Mulville
It's September. Football is still raw, but baseball is ripe in September.
Well, usually. This year, all of the races have been decided.
Hey ... maybe this is a Bud Selig plot to keep baseball in the public mind until October, when the playoffs start ... hmmmm ... · Sep 6 at 12:09pm
Nice KC! And Mr Wilson - touche'!
I'm afraid my problem is that I grew up in Canada playing hockey (and rugby in HS/college). I've never understood the fascination with baseball. Even watching tennis and golf seems more exciting to me.
Oct '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Mark Wilson
KC Mulville:
The play happened at the Florida Marlins' park. As soon as the fan interfered, the play was dead. What Joe West wound up doing (as Mark pointed out) is to give the home fans incentive to interfere. Any near-home-run ball hit by the visiting team should be swatted away, because (if we follow Joe West) the umpires can assume that it would have been caught.
But to not make such a call gives the fans the incentive to interfere with home team balls that would otherwise be caught, turning them into groundrule doubles. · Sep 6 at 9:23am
Except that then the fan gets ejected from the stadium. Not sure many, if any, fans want that.
Oct '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Terry: From official MLB rules:
Rule 3.16: When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference. APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
The instant replay rule on HR boundaries allows for the umpire to rule on fair/foul, over the wall, and interference. · Sep 6 at 9:54am
"Interference" only in regard to whether the ball would have been a home run absent the interference, but NOT for ANY other determination. Once it was determined by video replay that the ball would NOT have been a home run, the video can NOT be used for any other purpose, and the play as called on the field MUST stand. Joe West blew it big-time.
Nov '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Good job Terry. It seems safer to debate this incident based on the actual written rules.