Should Bud Selig Overturn Jim Joyce's Call?

[FrankWakefield]

No. The bad call stands. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our progeny, we don't want a Commissioner tampering with the calls between the foul lines.


What should have happened is one of the other 3 umpires moves out in front of the plate, between the mound and the plate, and stares at the remaining 2, they'll get the idea and approach. They then look over at Joyce and wait for him to decide to approach. They can't help him unless he asks for help on the call, but they could have huddled there waiting for him to come over, and eventually he'd realize he should ask the crew chief for help on the call. I think we'll see the results of a meeting with umpires discussing this process.

Golly... if the Commissioner can 'fix' calls, I can think of a few that could do with 'fixing'. Where would it end? The problem here, I think, is that emotion and desire to reach a certain outcome (a perfect game) has pushed reason to one side. And that hit king walked by a sign every day as player, coach, and manager... the sign proscribed gambling. He should get in the hall any of the 363 days it's open, after he's bought an admission ticket.

[barrysloate]

Frank- I'm not suggesting that all bad calls should be subject to review. If an ump misses a call with two outs in the 5th inning of a 7-2 game, it should not be reversed. But there are exceptions to any rule, and can any call be more egregious than the one made last night? If ever there was a need to set a precedent, that was it.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

No. The bad call stands. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our progeny, we don't want a Commissioner tampering with the calls between the foul lines.


What should have happened is one of the other 3 umpires moves out in front of the plate, between the mound and the plate, and stares at the remaining 2, they'll get the idea and approach. They then look over at Joyce and wait for him to decide to approach. They can't help him unless he asks for help on the call, but they could have huddled there waiting for him to come over, and eventually he'd realize he should ask the crew chief for help on the call. I think we'll see the results of a meeting with umpires discussing this process.

Golly... if the Commissioner can 'fix' calls, I can think of a few that could do with 'fixing'. Where would it end? The problem here, I think, is that emotion and desire to reach a certain outcome (a perfect game) has pushed reason to one side. And that hit king walked by a sign every day as player, coach, and manager... the sign proscribed gambling. He should get in the hall any of the 363 days it's open, after he's bought an admission ticket.

I think Frank makes a good point. I was watching the game, and was waiting for any of the other umps to run over and at least say something to Joyce. Maybe it's time for instant replay to be used

[pgellis]

You want instant replay for routine judgement calls? Where would it end?

[Chris-Counts]

If instant replay was enacted in baseball, there would no doubt be limits to how often a call could be reviewed, just like in football. If a manager knew he could call for a review just once a game, he wouldn't blow that opportunity on a petty call ...

[pitchernut]

Don't like the call but that's just the way baseball is played and imo the less replay used in all sports the better.

[wolfdogg]

I voted NO......we don't need instant replay in baseball. Although it was a terrible call it was a judgement call and it happened fast. Jim Joyce made the call, he didn't hesitate. He felt he was safe and he stuck with it. If I was a MLB umpire I wouldn't want replays. I would feel like I really wasn't needed out there. Just look at a replay and make every call. Yes, I'm a purist, Love this game and I'm old fashion. This game has been around for 150 years....lets not change it.

Although I stated that I would have been ejected had it been me, my hats off to Galarraga, he didn't say a word to Joyce after the call, just a "I can't believe you called him safe" look. I was actually hoping Cabrera would get face to face with him at first while they were "jawing" at each other. Thought he was....why not? Last inning....one out to go.....cause a scene

And, I also tip my hat to Jim Joyce for going to clubhouse after he reviewed the call and realizing he missed it to apologize to Galarraga for the missed call. Took a man to do that and to admit he cost him his perfect game.........

Life goes on....its a game...

[B O'Brien]

I hate to say it, but I voted YES.

I consider myself to be a purist of the game, and would hate to see intsant reply go into effect, but I think this is one of the very small number of times in history that this would be a good decision. It would be fun to do some history digging and see if any of the countless appeals to the main office back in the day, ever overturned an on field decision.

I would also like to say what a good job the kid did taking it in stride. It would be hard not to blow a gasket, knowing that is your one chance at the history books.

Bob

[kkkkandp]

As has already been pointed out, there is precedent for doing just that - the George Brett Pine Tar incident.

When almost everyone else in the world thinks the call should be overturned, not overturning it will just make those people feel it is one more example of the commissioner sitting on his hands rather than taking an action, which he has the power to do, that could right a wrong.

Conversely, if he does reverse the call and award the perfect game, I think it will have a very beneficial effect. It's a "feel good" move that should not be ignored.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

As has already been pointed out, there is precedent for doing just that - the George Brett Pine Tar incident.

When almost everyone else in the world thinks the call should be overturned, not overturning it will just make those people feel it is one more example of the commissioner sitting on his hands rather than taking an action, which he has the power to do, that could right a wrong.

Conversely, if he does reverse the call and award the perfect game, I think it will have a very beneficial effect. It's a "feel good" move that should not be ignored.

First of all, Pine Tar incident was overturned because it was a "rules interpretation" and those are the only rulings that can be overturned, not a judgement call on a player out or safe at a base (that happens about 35 times per game).

Second, the commissioner is not sitting on his hands, he doesn't have the power to overturn a judgement call on the field.

[kkkkandp]

Originally Posted by pgellis

Second, the commissioner is not sitting on his hands, he doesn't have the power to overturn a judgement call on the field.

If he doesn't have the power by some document, I don't think anyone would argue if he took the common-sense, good-sportsmanship step. This is a game. Games are supposed to make you feel good. A lot of people feel angry about that game. He should make them feel good.

[barrysloate]

It's very odd that instant replay can be used to overturn a home run call but nothing else. What is the common sense behind that? Why couldn't a manager have say one challenge a game, like they do in the NFL? Or why couldn't there be one umpire in a booth somewhere watching instant replay? If there were no controversial calls then the game would proceed as it always does (very slowly indeed). But if there was an obvious mistake he would have the power to fix it. Not necessarily every ball and strike, but a significant play within certain parameters. Something along those lines couldn't really hurt the game.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

If he doesn't have the power by some document, I don't think anyone would argue if he took the common-sense, good-sportsmanship step. This is a game. Games are supposed to make you feel good. A lot of people feel angry about that game. He should make them feel good.

So where do you draw the line....if this wasn't going to be a perfect game, but rather a 1 or 2 hitter, do you review it?

If it was going to be a no-hitter, but not a perfect game, do you review it?

If it was just a regular game do you review it?

If a pitcher has a perfect game going in the sixth, do you start reviewing any and all close calls?

Where does it stop? Are you saying only in this rare instance of a possible perfect game being broken up with 2 outs in the ninth? Is that the only time you review it?

[barrysloate]

The NFL has instituted a rule that allows certain plays to be reviewed, and most fans of the game feel it has worked. Baseball could do the same thing, although a good deal of thought would have to be put into how to do it.

Not every blown call is the same. Umps probably miss at least 10-20 balls and strikes calls per game. It would be inefficient to review every pitch that was two inches off the plate and called a strike.

But what if last night Galarraga had a 3-2 count on the last hitter, threw the next pitch right down the center of the plate, and it was called ball four. Can we agree that there are some situations that are more critical than others, and deserve closer scrutiny?

Sure, umpires miss safe and out calls every day. There are hundreds of them during the course of the season. But would anybody really say that what Joyce did last night was just your garden variety missed call? Most missed calls are forgotten five minutes later; the one last night will be remembered for a generation.

I do think some plays are more crucial than others that appear to be similar. Couldn't there be some way to assess this and improve the game?

I'm using a simple premise here: it's always better to get the call right than to get it wrong. If the NFL found a way to cut down on errors by reviewing key plays, why can't baseball?

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

If he doesn't have the power by some document, I don't think anyone would argue if he took the common-sense, good-sportsmanship step. This is a game. Games are supposed to make you feel good. A lot of people feel angry about that game. He should make them feel good.

? A lot of people feel angry about a lot of games, should they get reversed? I think the poise that the pitcher had was admirable. Through this mistake he was given the opportunity to show a great amount of character which will be remembered more than if the call had been right and he had pitched a perfect game.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by pgellis

Second, the commissioner is not sitting on his hands, he doesn't have the power to overturn a judgement call on the field.

Of course he does. The Commissioner has the ultimate power to do anything he deems to be "in the best interest of Major League Baseball."

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

Of course he does. The Commissioner has the ultimate power to do anything he deems to be "in the best interest of Major League Baseball."

And you think "best interest" involves overturning a routine judgement call/play?

[barrysloate]

Do you genuinely think last night's play was routine? I don't.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Do you genuinely think last night's play was routine? I don't.

For a professional this was a routine play.....now, the circumstance was far from routine but I do think it was a fairly routine play that we see hundreds of times a season. (if I were to watch hundreds of plays )

[tesitzes24]

I voted Yes, that the call should be overturned, but I clicked it with my eyes closed, because I do agree that it would be setting a dangerous precedent.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by pgellis

And you think "best interest" involves overturning a routine judgement call/play?

I think having 3 of the 21 perfect games in history occur within a month is far from routine.

I think last night's game, and the play that should have ended it, were routine, only until the incorrect call was made. At that point, they ceased being routine.

I am all for getting things correct, and if that means correcting correctable errors, I am generally for it. If things had unfolded differently last night I might have felt differently. If the following batters had gotten hits and/or scored runs, I may have felt differently. But they didn't. That makes this the easiest of errors to correct. Batter is out. Game is over. Next guys AB doesn't count. Perfect game goes in the book. Apologize to the kid for ruining his celebration.


However, I feel that both sides of this argument have valid points. What isn't valid is saying that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to change it. He does. Whether he should or not is what's debatable.

[pitchernut]

One thing left out of all this is that if the 1st baseman had played his position and left the ball to the 2nd baseman we would not be debating this. So, imo Detroit did make an error?

[mybuddyinc]

No -- It's Baseball.

[celoknob]

Unfortunately this will probably lead to instant replay. Combined with all the loud music, stupid scoreboard games etc., I may just stop going to the games. A ballgame used to be a place to get away from distractions and excessive technology, now it is just another source.

I'd trade a perfectly umpired game for the simple game of baseball as it was meant to be played with all its errors (umpires and otherwise).

[alanu]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but if the call was the other way, he was called out when he was safe, would the perfect game be taken away?

In either case I don't think it should be reversed.

[ctownboy]

I consider myself am a purist (an NL fan) but I am also all about getting calls right.

If this were the NBA, the NFL or the NHL, instant replay would have been used and the call would have been made right.

Bud Selig has been against instant replay but he CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. He can not be against instant replay while also not having to be held responsible for standing up and changing an incorrect call.

David

[bbcard1]

Let me throw this into the mix...how about he add the effort to the official list of perfect games in the same way Ernie Shore's perfect game is...for the two people on this board who do not know, Ruth started the game, walked the first batter and was ejected for arguing with the ump. Shore entered the game, the batter was caught stealing and he retired the next 26. He is generally credited with a perfect game.

For what it is worth, he will probably have more enduring and marketable fame from this than if he had pitched the perfect game. He and Joyce will be linked like Branca/Thompson or Buckner/Wilson...probably can make a few dollars off dual autograph appearances for years to come.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

Let me throw this into the mix...how about he add the effort to the official list of perfect games in the same way Ernie Shore's perfect game is...for the two people on this board who do not know, Ruth started the game, walked the first batter and was ejected for arguing with the ump. Shore entered the game, the batter was caught stealing and he retired the next 26. He is generally credited with a perfect game.

Shore is NOT credited with a perfect game by MLB.

[barrysloate]

Shore came into the game as a relief pitcher. I never understood why he was ever credited with a perfect game, even before the rules were changed.

[esehombre]

I think this case hardly calls for any type of "precedent" to be set. I am sure there are others but George Brett's Pine Tar incident come to mind. Be that as it may--great post, but this seems like a very elemental decision. By all accounts the umpire made an honest mistake--Make the correct call and move on.
In basketball, you have reviews under a minute, hockey has reviews and so does football. It would take a few seconds to overturn a call like this--and with the amount of importance riding on this, how can you not?
I would rather lose a game with the correct call, than win one with an incorrect call.

[pgellis]

So Jim & Barry....are you guys saying since it was going to be a perfect game, then we should throw everything else aside from the last 120 years of baseball and make this one exception?

So the only time we make an exception is when there is a close play on the last out of a potential perfect game? What about a no-hitter? What about a shutout? Where do you draw the line?

The human element is what is great about the game and we, as fans, have been pretty comfortable with that for over a century. It seems that some people would just assume have robots and computers making calls, "as long as they get the call correct" is all that some people care about.

What if it was a 3-2 count and he threw one right down the pipe that got called ball 4.......do you want to review balls and strikes with instant replay? No, but if it was going to be a perfect game then you do?

As for the commissioner having the power to do anything "that is in the best interest of MLB", well maybe you are right.....but I can't see how a commissioner can intercede and call a batter out a day later. Maybe he will, he's done dumber things before, but how do you think the Umpire's Association will feel about that? Jim Joyce has already publicly apologized...he got it wrong....he owned up to it. He is human.

[bbcard1]

Concerning Shore:

His most famous game occurred on June 23, 1917, against the Washington Senators in the first game of a doubleheader at Fenway Park. Ruth started the game, walking the first batter, Ray Morgan. As newspaper accounts of the time relate, the short-fused Ruth then engaged in a heated argument with apparently equally short-fused home plate umpire Brick Owens. Owens tossed Ruth out of the game, and the even more enraged Ruth then slugged the umpire a glancing blow before being taken off the field; the catcher was also ejected. Shore was recruited to pitch, and came in with very few warmup pitches. With a new pitcher and catcher, runner Morgan tried to steal but was thrown out. Shore then proceeded to retire the remaining 26 Senators without allowing a baserunner, earning a 4-0 Red Sox win. For many years the game was listed in record books as a "perfect game in relief," but officially it is scored as a no-hitter, shared (albeit unequally) by two pitchers. Following the game, Ruth paid a $100 fine, was suspended for ten games, and issued a public apology for his behavior.

I had missed/forgotten that it had been removed from the perfect game list.

[barrysloate]

Phil- I actually feel that last night's game is old business and it is too late to change it. But what I am suggesting is using last night as a wake-up call for baseball to address the need for a better way to do things, so that something like this can hopefully be avoided next time. Nothing wrong with trying to make improvements.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Phil- I actually feel that last night's game is old business and it is too late to change it. But what I am suggesting is using last night as a wake-up call for baseball to address the need for a better way to do things, so that something like this can hopefully be avoided next time. Nothing wrong with trying to make improvements.

OK.....and what I am saying is how do you draw up a set of "instances" where we go to instant replay or booth review or something? In the NFL, NHL, NBA there are very few instances that need to be reviewed if you don't want to micro-manage every second of every game. Those games have a clock. MLB has every pitch and every play that could be scrutinized...it is not as fluid a game as the other 3 major sports.

So, how could you possibly come up with a list of instances for baseball that you could use instant replay.....I think it would be exhausting and discriminatory in nature. For example, close plays at homeplate only...then why not 3rd base or 2nd base. Only when a scoring play is affected? Well then last night wouldn't count. Only when a lead change is affected? Well then last night wouldn't count again.

I just really think that there are way too many plays that "could" be looked at during a major league baseball game that I feel it would almost be impossible to narrow down a list of instances.

Let's see if you can narrow it down (like the NFL did) to a reasonable size set of instances. Go ahead....

[deadballera]

I hate to say it, but I voted YES too.

Instant replay would be good in certain situations.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by pgellis

So Jim & Barry....are you guys saying since it was going to be a perfect game, then we should throw everything else aside from the last 120 years of baseball and make this one exception?

So the only time we make an exception is when there is a close play on the last out of a potential perfect game? What about a no-hitter? What about a shutout? Where do you draw the line?

The human element is what is great about the game and we, as fans, have been pretty comfortable with that for over a century. It seems that some people would just assume have robots and computers making calls, "as long as they get the call correct" is all that some people care about.

What if it was a 3-2 count and he threw one right down the pipe that got called ball 4.......do you want to review balls and strikes with instant replay? No, but if it was going to be a perfect game then you do?

As for the commissioner having the power to do anything "that is in the best interest of MLB", well maybe you are right.....but I can't see how a commissioner can intercede and call a batter out a day later. Maybe he will, he's done dumber things before, but how do you think the Umpire's Association will feel about that? Jim Joyce has already publicly apologized...he got it wrong....he owned up to it. He is human.

I never suggested anything, one way or the other. I only commented on your thought that Selig did not have the power to change this. The Commissioner's powers are far reaching, although vague. He can do whatever he deems best for MLB.

Now when he runs into trouble is when he gets either side (owners or players union) ticked off. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

[FUBAR]

after hearing Joyce's apology, I am sure he would want it overturned....

but in hindsight, he was awarded an awfully nice Corvette convertible as a consolation prize!

[martyogelvie]

i think too much time has passed and now the bad call must stand.

no reversal.

if you want to reverse calls, try replay, otherwise play with the rules that are in place.

[Anthony S.]

Do you think Bud ever loses track of all committees he's formed to study MLB issues?

[whycough]

Mrs. Claypool: Mr. Driftwood, three months ago you promised to put me into society. In all that time, you've done nothing but draw a very hansome salary.
Driftwood: You think that's nothing, huh? How many men are drawing a handsome salary nowadays. Why you can count them on the fingers of one hand, my good woman.

[barrysloate]

Night at the Opera.

[whycough]

And I'm sure you understand the point of my drift.

[kmac32]

evidence for instant replay in baseball!

[Tom Hufford]

It was a really, really bad call - and everyone agrees. Is the call for "Selig to make it right" REALLY a desire to get the call correct, or is the desire to make sure the pitcher gets a Perfect Game (albeit, one that he deserved)?

Let's say conditions were the same as last night, the batter hits a ball which is fielded by the 1st baseman, who flips to the pitcher covering 1st. "Out!" calls the ump, and the celebration begins - a Perfect Game and the pitcher is carried off the field! Then someone looks at a replay which clearly shows that the runner was safe at first, and anyway, even though the pitcher had the ball in his glove, he never stepped on the bag.

Would there be a public outcry to change the call and get it correct? And take away a Perfect Game after the celebration? If not, why not? If the goal is to get it correct - and not to achieve a desired outcome - what is the difference in these two games?

I don't think the results of last night's game can be changed, unless we're ready to accept a change in the other direction.

Today, I had lunch with Braves' GM Frank Wren, who watched last nights' game. As he put it, "There were obviously no other runners on base, the batter was either safe at first (and not trying to go to second), or he was out (game over). Joyce made the call, but as soon as Leyland came out to question it, all that needed to be done was for the umpires to confer and come up with a definite answer. They didn't do that, and Joyce gets all the blame. All this could have been avoided it the umps had just talked to each other, but they didn't. What a shame." Derryl Cousins is the Crew Chief of that umpire crew, and I haven't heard his name mentioned once.

[barrysloate]

Tom- good points, and if it happened the other way, with a perfect game awarded because the ump missed the call, there would still have been a small outcry from the fans, but not on the national level it achieved. This story seemed to transcend baseball, and became a parable about how good sportsmanship is such a rare commodity in today's world. No question some unique things came out of it, but bottom line is a perfect game is a once in a lifetime achievement that few major leaguers have ever achieved. And a humble and not that well known pitcher had one and had it taken away.

[M's_Fan]

I would just say that it wasn't such a bad call if you put yourself in Joyce's shoes. The ball never hit the meat of the glove to make the audible "whack". Instead, it bounced around a little bit. Without the sound to compare to, you go off of what you see, which isn't easy at all. So I disagree with the view that it was an easy call. He was clearly safe from the replay, but it was not such an easy call, in my opinion.

Also, I heard an umpire on the radio today say that umpires rarely conference over a first base call like that. One ump is in position, and the other umps hardly ever conference and overturn a call like that.

[nolemmings]

It was an easy call in the sense that Joyce never claimed he considered a bobble, and never considered a swipe foot tag that might have missed the base. He claimed he was convinced that the runner beat the throw. The call was gross incompetence.

[nolemmings]

BTW, I don't put that much stock in Joyce's contriteness, especially as he had little choice in t he face of the evidence. To me he can apologize until he's blue in the face, he should still be suspended. Please don't give me that everyone makes mistakes schtick. This was the final out of a ballgame, and a potential perfect game. His attention should have been as acute or morseo than any other time in the game. His job was simple, and he blew the call. There should be consequences, remorseful or not as he might be.

If you are in an important position for your company or, better still, your profession and, at the height of an important decision, you blow it, you should expect to be fired or disciplined in some fashion. Period. If you don't like the pressure of being in that position, find another line of work. Bottom line, you embarrassed the game. Man up and apologize--fine, you did. Now man up and take some punishment too.

I'm not saying the guy should be accosted in the streets, his kids ridiculed at school or his pension taken away, but that call was inexcusable and incompetent, and he should be penalized for it (BTW, he flat out blew another call in the 8th that led to 2 Tiger runs--is this guy horseblip or what?). Seems like some time off without pay might help him become more focused and disciplined, if not, move on and let someone else do the job.

[Butch7999]

Originally Posted by Tom Hufford

... Today, I had lunch with Braves' GM Frank Wren, who watched last nights' game. As he put it, "There were obviously no other runners on base, the batter was either safe at first (and not trying to go to second), or he was out (game over). Joyce made the call, but as soon as Leyland came out to question it, all that needed to be done was for the umpires to confer and come up with a definite answer. They didn't do that, and Joyce gets all the blame. All this could have been avoided it the umps had just talked to each other, but they didn't. What a shame." Derryl Cousins is the Crew Chief of that umpire crew, and I haven't heard his name mentioned once.

Our very thought, Mercury. Were all the umps in that game dazed and confused? Given the historic, melodramatic circumstances, did none of them have the rudimentary awareness to huddle up and consider overturning the blown call? Obviously not, and they just left Joyce to twist in the wind.

Maybe it's just that improved video technology in recent years better shows how often the umps are wrong -- and it's not like there weren't some howlers over the years -- but we don't remember there being, back in the day, nearly as many bad calls, or as many outrageously bad calls, as there are now. What do they teach these guys in Umpire School?