Should Bud Selig Overturn Jim Joyce's Call?

[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.