First, I'm not even familiar with the Sea/Min call that you are talking about, but if it affected the outcome of the game, I would not be in favor of overturning it. I thought I've made that pretty clear now - that overturning the Galarraga call is fine since it would not affect the outcome of the game, and thus, would not set some irreversible bogeyman precedent.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Galarraga Perfect Game Debacle
- Thread starter Andy T.
- Start date
ccrobinson
Active Member
Andy T said:
I've only written about the game twice, so I can see how you would miss it.
The bad call in the Twins game was on the last out of the game and the Mariners scored on the same play. Your precious IR would have overturned the call and the Twins would have won.
I missed this.
Are you kidding? It couldn't be plainer.
Here's a pic for you. Are you seriously going to say that Worrell's foot wasn't on the bag?
I've already said that I wouldn't want Selig to overturn a call that would affect the outcome of the game.
I don't think that pic is all that plain. And I also know pics can be altered. I'll grant that Orta was probably out, but there is a little more gray on this call than on Galarraga's. Regardless, I would not overturn the call, since it affected the outcome of the game.
There are only about a gazillion of em. There have only been a gazillion documentaries about it. Geez. Are you going to question Kennedy's assasination now?
The last sentence is a non sequitur. The first sentence is just baffling. There have been clear calls blown that IR have let stand in all sports. Your assertion is just plain wrong. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt early, but now it just looks like your bias is coming out ole buddy.
He defended the call until the next day, as did the rest of the crew. Four guys got it the same. A fifth was gonna overturn it? That's a huge leap in logic that is presumptuous at best.
That's a rather bizarre standard. Define "affect the outcome of the game"?
What if there had been a 29th, 35th, etc.? What if the inning had continued and the Tribe had tied it up? Would you have overturned the call?
I believe this is incorrect. I saw reports within a couple hours after the game that Joyce admitted it was the wrong call.
No, I would not want Selig to overturn the call in your scenario. But that's not what happened. The 28th guy made an out, so just reverse the call and nullfiy the 28th at-bat. I'm sure that Indians player won't mind having is 0 for 1 erased.
I think we are discussing two different issues. One is when and where the Commissioner could overturn a call. Two is how IR would work if implemented. I've been talking about One, not Two.
ESPN and FOX reported that Joyce adamantly defended the call the night of, and only the next day said otherwise.
As for pgph 1, why wouldn't you want Selig to overturn the call?
And what if we were talking about a 7 hit shutout instead? Should Selig intervene in your mind?
As for the second pgph, we have in fact both been discussing IR's implementation, whether we directly admit it or not when you make claims like "IR shouldn't affect a game's outcome" and "IR would definitely reverse this call." Those are both loaded as all get out.
I'd be curious to hear your other responses to the other queries if/when you get time.
As for the '85 call, I'm trying to find you video for it that isn't doctored :thumbs:
ccrobinson
Active Member
Andy T. said:
Complete nonsense. You're advocating that Selig change the outcome of the game. Galarraga didn't get a perfect game. By overturning the call, Selig is changing the outcome of the game. Detroit would still win, but it's a different game. Stop pretending you're not advocating this. It's exactly what you're advocating.
Andy, there is no gray here. There's no doctored or altered photos. The replay is completely conclusive. Orta was clearly out.
And this is where I'm done with this debate. You can't debate somebody who lives in his own reality.
Prior to this debate, I would have considered you a friend on this board. No longer. I don't remain friends with people who call me a coward.
By "outcome of the game" I mean Win vs. Loss. The Tigers win that game no matter what. For example, let's say batters 28-31 would've all hit HR's and the Indians came back and won 4-3. In that case, I would not advocate Selig overturning the call on batter 27, since doing so would affect who won the game. That's what I mean.
I think we have a misunderstanding here. I never intended my "coward's way" comment towards you or anyone on this board - it was strictly intended towards Bud Selig's decision to not overturn the call. And I should clarify - I'm not calling Selig a coward, only his [non]action was cowardly hiding behind the strawman "precedent."
So are we ok?
Because it would affect who won the game. See my explanation to cc above. Overturning a call like in your scenario would set a bad precedent. But not in this case, due to the rarity of the situation. How many more times do think we will see a blown call on the 27th out of a perfect game? I say never.
No, because shutouts are commonplace and not at all historical. Perfect games (only 20 in history) are uncommon, historical events.
There is a difference between Selig overturning a call after the fact (which I have clarified above - only in very limited situations) vs. overturning a call via an eventual well-defined IR policy before the next at-bat occurs.
Let me know which ones - I've lost track. If it's about an eventual IR policy and how it would work, we could talk all day about that. But it doesn't change my thoughts that Selig could have very easily overturned this call without setting any kind of slippery slope precedent.
Well, if you think the '85 call is so clear, then I don't understand how you could say the Galarraga call would not have been overturned on IR. The technology is simply better now, and it is more clear on this one than the '85 call. I'm just not sure the '85 call would've met the "conclusive evidence" standard for it to be overturned upon IR.
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to add to this: Even though my comment was directed toward Selig's inaction (and not you), keep in mind the context - we are talking about a game. I did not intend it maliciously at all. Kind of like talking with buddies where we might talk a little smack, etc.
Andy, I have time only for a brief response.
So by your own admission, you believe that this case warrants Bud Selig (who is not an umpire) to make an umpire's call because:
1. The question of who won or lost the game is paramount and this would not be affected by Selig taking this step;
2. This step is warranted because of the play in question affecting a feat that is historical and rare in nature.
3. The call would have been overturned on IR if IR had been used since the umpire admitted after watching tape that he made the wrong call.
Let me briefly take these one at a time, in reverse:
3 is quite simply balderdash, and you make this own point. More on that leter.
2. The fact that Selig would award, after the fact, an historical feat by changing the outcome of the play on the field and overturning the call on the field by all umpires on the field (since all agreed on the call) makes the feat almost less historical. How this doesn't affect the sanctity of the game is beyond me. Second, you're advocating an ump's bad call be overturned because it matters only in an individual record. Well, baseball is a game of individual records. Chock full of 'em. One of the outcries against the steroid era is that it taints the records - not of teams who employed the cheaters - but of the individuals themselves. To do as you assert and have the outcome of an individual record decided off the field is a step I just don't want to see. "Oh" someone says, "This happens with IR on HRs." Not in isolation like this. In totality, maybe. But we're talking about an achievement being granted off the field. That's the bene esse.
1. For you, this must be decided because you invoke (a bromide, IMHO) that the game's outcome isn't decided. But wait...isn't that paramount? Isn't baseball a team game? Is Pete Rose not banned now because he broke a rule that affected team outcomes? Outcomes of games? You are saying this should not be reversible. But why not? Since they're more important than individual records (I'm allowing that you don't believe this....if not asserting it) why can't the commish say a walk-off HR be disallowed or granted, thereby changing the outcome of a game.
And remember this: every game has a box score. Every time a call changes an out, the game is changed materially. Games in baseball are decided relative to finality by outs. The game isn't over until the 27th out. So your false dichotomy is...well, a false dichotomy. You freely said that batter 28 wouldn't mind having his out taken away and his BA go back up. That just altered the game. And moreover, the batter who was called safe via an infield hit would have hs BA go down. What you are advocating is indeed a reversal of way too much. It is tantamount to FIBA President in 1972 (Name escapes me) stepping onto the floor and ordering that time be put back on the clock.
And while we're at it: what if Gal's perfecto had went by the boards via a called ball four that was "clearly" a strike. Overturn it? What if the next batter got a single? Overturn it then?
In closing, I think you're right in that I interpreted what you said vis a vis "coward's way out" to refer to Selig, but prima facie I can see CCRob's point. A PM might be a good idea.
We talk smack in here (and I love that we can) but sometimes - and take this with all due affection - your biases paint yourself into a corner sometimes (much like this one) And of course, you're the only one that does that!
So by your own admission, you believe that this case warrants Bud Selig (who is not an umpire) to make an umpire's call because:
1. The question of who won or lost the game is paramount and this would not be affected by Selig taking this step;
2. This step is warranted because of the play in question affecting a feat that is historical and rare in nature.
3. The call would have been overturned on IR if IR had been used since the umpire admitted after watching tape that he made the wrong call.
Let me briefly take these one at a time, in reverse:
3 is quite simply balderdash, and you make this own point. More on that leter.
2. The fact that Selig would award, after the fact, an historical feat by changing the outcome of the play on the field and overturning the call on the field by all umpires on the field (since all agreed on the call) makes the feat almost less historical. How this doesn't affect the sanctity of the game is beyond me. Second, you're advocating an ump's bad call be overturned because it matters only in an individual record. Well, baseball is a game of individual records. Chock full of 'em. One of the outcries against the steroid era is that it taints the records - not of teams who employed the cheaters - but of the individuals themselves. To do as you assert and have the outcome of an individual record decided off the field is a step I just don't want to see. "Oh" someone says, "This happens with IR on HRs." Not in isolation like this. In totality, maybe. But we're talking about an achievement being granted off the field. That's the bene esse.
1. For you, this must be decided because you invoke (a bromide, IMHO) that the game's outcome isn't decided. But wait...isn't that paramount? Isn't baseball a team game? Is Pete Rose not banned now because he broke a rule that affected team outcomes? Outcomes of games? You are saying this should not be reversible. But why not? Since they're more important than individual records (I'm allowing that you don't believe this....if not asserting it) why can't the commish say a walk-off HR be disallowed or granted, thereby changing the outcome of a game.
And remember this: every game has a box score. Every time a call changes an out, the game is changed materially. Games in baseball are decided relative to finality by outs. The game isn't over until the 27th out. So your false dichotomy is...well, a false dichotomy. You freely said that batter 28 wouldn't mind having his out taken away and his BA go back up. That just altered the game. And moreover, the batter who was called safe via an infield hit would have hs BA go down. What you are advocating is indeed a reversal of way too much. It is tantamount to FIBA President in 1972 (Name escapes me) stepping onto the floor and ordering that time be put back on the clock.
And while we're at it: what if Gal's perfecto had went by the boards via a called ball four that was "clearly" a strike. Overturn it? What if the next batter got a single? Overturn it then?
Glad you brought this up. Two sets of eyes see a play differently and at different times. NFL refs have many times said they saw the play on IR during the game one way and only another after the game. So have SEC officials. No way on earth you can claim IR infallibility here. No way. Thanks for making my point :thumbsup:
In closing, I think you're right in that I interpreted what you said vis a vis "coward's way out" to refer to Selig, but prima facie I can see CCRob's point. A PM might be a good idea.
We talk smack in here (and I love that we can) but sometimes - and take this with all due affection - your biases paint yourself into a corner sometimes (much like this one)
And of course, you're the only one that does that! So which are you, Tom? Are you for the integrity of the game? Or for the DH in the NL? You can't have it both ways.
To the point, Selig should not have overturned the call. The game is played on the field, and that's where it ends. I am not in favor of IR.
Andy is saying that he would not overturn a call that would affect the outcome of the game. That makes no sense to me. If any call should be overturned (and it shouldn't), it would be those that affect the outcome of the game because that has actual implications for the season and the World Series. Can you imagine missing the WS because of a blown call that was clearly wrong but not overturned?
Selig did the right thing here (for a change). Good for him.
Good to hear from you. Right on all counts. You've been saying what I've been saying...you just do it betterSo which are you, Tom? Are you for the integrity of the game? Or for the DH in the NL? You can't have it both ways.
To the point, Selig should not have overturned the call. The game is played on the field, and that's where it ends. I am not in favor of IR.
Andy is saying that he would not overturn a call that would affect the outcome of the game. That makes no sense to me. If any call should be overturned (and it shouldn't), it would be those that affect the outcome of the game because that has actual implications for the season and the World Series. Can you imagine missing the WS because of a blown call that was clearly wrong but not overturned?
Selig did the right thing here (for a change). Good for him.
Even in your "rebuke" of me See, reason I'm for the DH is because of the integrity of the game. No one has yet explained to me how having pitchers meekly and laughingly swing meaninglessly contributes to the integrity of the game.ESPN just published a players' survery. 8 out of 10 do NOT want IR to be applied in the Galarraga situation. I'm like you. Let the games be decided on the field.
That's an easy one, Tom. Baseball is a game of nine players, not ten. Every position in the field corresponds to a batting order. And part of the game is making choices between offense and defense. If generating offense/having good batters is the key, why have just one designated hitter? Why not have nine? Why not have a offense/defense like they do in football? Why not just have six people bat, or two? Or why not just one and use a DR (designated runner)?
The answer to all those is because it is the integrity of the game ... the way the game is played.
Why do teams make late inning defensive substitutions? It's part of the game of choosing between offense and defense. You give up something at the plate in order to gain something in the field.
Part of the integrity of game is making those substitutions at the right time, knowing you can only do it once.
I think the DH makes a kind of mockery of the game, but it's around to stay in the AL unfortunately. Let's not corrupt the NL with it.
ccrobinson
Active Member
Pastor Larry said:
*stands and applauds*
:applause:
Not so fast CCRob. I realize we're off topic, but here goes:
That said, I'm not a foam-at-the-mouth DL guy. I think Andy's more passionate about it than I am. I do tire of the NL making a mockery of the game by not having it and having P's bat who clearly aren't trying. Oh well. Another discussion for another time.
A batting order has nine men. Using your logic, a Punter in football has no place on the field since he isn't one of the 11. The punter is a specialized player, much like a DH. So are you in favor of eliminating the punter or placekicker? If not, why not? Why can't the QB do it? Get a WR to do it?
This isn't germane at all to the discussion but I see where you're going. Almost every sport has specialized positions.
The NL and the Japanese league are the only two leagues on the planet that do not use the DL last time I looked. It's time they got with the program.
That said, I'm not a foam-at-the-mouth DL guy. I think Andy's more passionate about it than I am. I do tire of the NL making a mockery of the game by not having it and having P's bat who clearly aren't trying. Oh well. Another discussion for another time.
I am not in favor of using a barbaric game of nonsense to compare to baseball. It's a different kind of game. But yes, I think the specialized positions are too specialized.
I assume you mean DH.
Unlike the AL who makes a mockery by having ten players at a time play a nine player game?
Using your logic, we could a DS and a DD in the NBA. The DS stays on the offensive half of the floor, and the DD stays on the defensive end of the floor. That way, you don't make a mockery out of the game by having someone like Ben Wallace attempting to play offense. And why not a DFTS for Shaq. Talk about a mockery of the game ... Shaq attempted free throws may be worse than the BP oil spill, because there is hope that the BP oil spill will stop. But Shaq keeps getting fouled and chucking those bricks up there. Why not have a DFTS for him?
The answer is because of the way the game is played. You make choices. If you don't want a weak hitting pitcher batting, then don't let him bat. But that means you don't let him pitch either. Get another pitcher. Trade defense for offense.
I'm not biased on this one. I may be wrong, but I am not biased. I would advocate overturning the call even if it happened to a Yankees or Twins pitcher in the exact same scenario.