I don’t see how either team has an advantage. No matter what the score was, Selig wasn’t going to allow the game to end until 9 innings had been played.
Maybe he changed the rules, although no World Series game has ended short of 9 innings, but he didn’t give either team an advantage.
No. That's not how I heard it first reported, and in fact that's not what happened. He wasn't going to let the Series end with a rain shortened game. This is complete BS.
ML/NJ
The conditions had been horrible and unsuitable for the last inning and a half. Using the actual major leagues with the umpires in charge using their judgement, that game would have been stopped in the 4th inning.
I have to say I agree with the poster. I think that if the Rays had been ahead they could have and probably would have ended the game. It gives the Rays a win but the series goes on. On the other hand, as long as the Phillies were winning, stopping the game would result in a Phillies win and an end to the series. That they simply would not let happen. So they were going to play until one of three things happened:
There was no scenario where the game would be stopped as long as the Phillies had a lead because by rule that makes them the winners. If Selig came out after the fact and said they were'nt becaus he changed the rules, all hell would break loose.
Based on that, Scenario 1 and 2 are biased to an outcome favorable to the Rays. Scenario 3 is neutral but crummy because that field was unplayable.
I’m not usually big on fair, but in this case letting the Phillies bat in the bottom of the inning would have been the right decision. Let both teams have an equal number of at-bats in the horrible conditions. As it is the Rays won’t have to contend with the same conditions that allowed them to score in the top of the inning.