Armando Gallaraga robbed of Perfect game

[BearCat204]

Why? What is so sacrosanct about the call on the field when there's overwhelming video evidence that it was wrong? It's not like the other team came back and won, or that there was any possible effect on the outcome of the game. It was the last play of the game. The game ended immediately afterwards anyway. Everybody's fine with replay in football; what is so holy about the on-the-field call in baseball?

Please, one of you guys explain to me exactly why a call that was A) obviously wrong, B) of historical importance, and yet C) clearly unimportant in a who-won-the-game way ought not to be overturned by a putative commissioner who has the power to make things right. Please include as part of your argument a justification why replay is a natural and good part of football, and yet overturning a call on the field in baseball is a travesty.

The reason that I beleive that not overturning the call after the fact is the right move, is because they dont have this protocol currently in place to handle situations like this. The answer to the problem in my opinion is to change the policy to include the ability of either Selig or a umpire panel to look at situations like this and be able to change calls on the field. They are able to do this with college football, if I remember correctly, and they have this policy in place. But in this situation, it is after the fact and a change in protocol should only affect events after the rules were changed imo.

 

[NYYVol]

Why? What is so sacrosanct about the call on the field when there's overwhelming video evidence that it was wrong? It's not like the other team came back and won, or that there was any possible effect on the outcome of the game. It was the last play of the game. The game ended immediately afterwards anyway. Everybody's fine with replay in football; what is so holy about the on-the-field call in baseball?

Please, one of you guys explain to me exactly why a call that was A) obviously wrong, B) of historical importance, and yet C) clearly unimportant in a who-won-the-game way ought not to be overturned by a putative commissioner who has the power to make things right. Please include as part of your argument a justification why replay is a natural and good part of football, and yet overturning a call on the field in baseball is a travesty.

Just now saw this post.

To me the human element is a big part of baseball. True, Jim Joyce may have put an "oh but" mark on a stellar career and cost a pitcher a perfect game. But to me, that's what seperates baseball from the other sports.

It's tradition, unwritten codes and such.

My entire argument is that if the call is reversed, where do you draw the line? Do you go back and change no hitters that were close calls on whether or not an error was committed?
Like I said before, I can understand the argument from those wanting instant replay. Technology is at an all-time high and will only get better. But to me, that takes away from the standard of the game.

Let the umpire's make the judgment. They've not had the greatest year, I know, but they still do a damn fine job.

To me, the instant replay argument may have parallels to the DH rule.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volfanbill]

The reason that I beleive that not overturning the call after the fact is the right move, is because they dont have this protocol currently in place to handle situations like this. The answer to the problem in my opinion is to change the policy to include the ability of either Selig or a umpire panel to look at situations like this and be able to change calls on the field. They are able to do this with college football, if I remember correctly, and they have this policy in place. But in this situation, it is after the fact and a change in protocol should only affect events after the rules were changed imo.

Selig does have the authority to change the call. That's why he should do it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BearCat204]

Selig does have the authority to change the call. That's why he should do it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I know he has the "authority" to overturn it, its just that there is no precedent for it

 

[Vercingetorix]

I know he has the "authority" to overturn it, its just that there is no precedent for it

Who cares if there's no precedent if it's the right thing to do? A couple of years ago during the NHL playoffs, one of the players engaged in some egregious faceguarding of the goaltender -- but there was no penalty called, because it wasn't actually defined that that was a penalty. The next day the NHL announced that, beginning immediately, it was going to be called a penalty. There was no precedent for changing a rule on the fly; they were "supposed" to wait until the end of the year to have the rules committee meet about it, etc. They were widely praised for ignoring precedent and doing the right thing immediately. Everyone agrees that Selig has the power to overturn the call if he wants to; why does the fact that he's never actually done it before have anything to do with it?

My entire argument is that if the call is reversed, where do you draw the line? Do you go back and change no hitters that were close calls on whether or not an error was committed?
Like I said before, I can understand the argument from those wanting instant replay. Technology is at an all-time high and will only get better. But to me, that takes away from the standard of the game.

It's a unique situation -- a blatantly wrong, non-judgmental call on the 27th out of a perfect game. A unique situation warrants a unique action. If that's the standard for commissioner action, then the slippery slope wouldn't be a problem.

You answered your own question. It's C. It didn't affect the outcome of the game.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Well, I should have specified that it didn't affect the game insofar as it had no effect on the 1/162 of a baseball season that that game represents. It changed everything else about the outcome of the game. From historical event to meaningless early-season game in the flash of an eye.

 

[Lexvol]

I think he fears huge pushback from the brain trust of "traditionalists".

I just don't understand why this guy is still the commish.

 

[BearCat204]

I will just agree to disagree