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
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Yeah...except the rule Terry cited has nothing to do with the rules limitations on the permitted uses of instant replay.
This is from the MLB press release when IR was introduced: "Instant replay will apply only to home run calls -- whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference."
The call in question was NOT a "home run call" - it was a ground-rule double call. Fan interference on a ground-rule double call is NOT fan interference on a home run call, thus, IR is not allowed to be used.
This, too, is from the MLB press release when IR was announced: "Any decision regarding the placement of runners, should a home run call be reversed, will be made by the crew chief."
Except what was reversed was NOT a "home run call." It was a ground-rule double call.
And finally, Joe West said that once replay happens, "we must use all evidence." Oh really? Find THAT in the rulebook for me.
Nov '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Did McKean ask West to review the replay because he believed the hit was a homerun in the absence of spectator interference?
The ball was VERY close to the top of the fence. A reasonable umpire would watch the replay and then use whatever he learned to adjust for what would have likely happened in the absence of spectator interference. It is most likely the outfielder would have caught the ball. I think West got this call right. And, on the original question, I believe Selig will be Scalia-like in making that decision.
But, after all this has been said, I'd prefer we do away with replays in all sports.
Oct '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
ron espeseth: Did McKean ask West to review the replay because he believed the hit was a homerun in the absence of spectator interference?
The ball was VERY close to the top of the fence. A reasonable umpire would watch the replay and then use whatever he learned...
First, whether McKean asked for the review is irrelevant with respect to what happened subsequently.
Second, there are only certain permitted uses of IR. West's using "whatever he learned..." is NOT one of the permitted uses. For example, if he had seen on a particular replay angle that a guy tagging up from third base on a fly ball had left too soon, he would NOT be permitted to call that runner out on appeal by the defensive team on the field. Just can't do it.
This is the distinction that most people are missing - there are finite, discrete, specific uses to which IR can be put. The way West used IR is not one of them.
I'm guessing the appeal will be upheld and the game will be replayed, however they re-do games on appeal (from that point forward? start over? rock paper scissors?)
Jun '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Protest denied for the reasons I stated, BTW:
http://tinyurl.com/3zvdq88
dittoheadadt
Yeah...except the rule Terry cited has nothing to do with the rules limitations on the permitted uses of instant replay.
· Sep 7 at 8:34am
Jun '11
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Thanks, Ron.
Oct '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Clearly, I'm no Jimmy the Greek. Nevertheless, if you read MLB's explanation for denying the appeal, you will realize they are no different from Democrats and the US Constitution - written rules are to be ignored when a particular outcome is desired. As yet no one has cited the Rule language allowing IR's use this way. Terry, would you explain why IR couldn't have been used last year to overturn Jim Joyce's blown call on Gallarraga's perfect game, and then reconcile that explanation with your reasoning that it was ok to use it here? And Ron, where are the "actual written rules" governing the permitted uses of IR? Again, they have yet to be cited or identified (other than by me, that is, when I quoted the MLB press release at the time IR was introduced, said press release clearly identifying the intent of IR). God bless the Bud Selig era. Outcome-based rules implementation.
Oct '10
Re: Baseball and a Living Constitution
Yet another glorious moment for Major League Baseball under the wonderful stewardship of Bud Selig:
http://nyp.st/oot7uB