[Dr. Sivana]

Been done before. George Brett's pinetar homerun comes to mind.

There is a difference between the two types of incidents. In the Pine Tar case, MacPhail ruled not that the bat didn't have too much pine tar on it, but that a penalty not allowed in the rules was applied. In this case, the acttual judgement of safe or out has nothing to do with the rules themselves, but with facts.

One could argue that one could appeal errors in law (umpire applied a non-existent penalty or made up a rule. Lets say he arbitrarily decided a team forfeited, or called a game for rain after the third inning and counted it as a complete game.) but not an error of fact (player was out but umpire erroneously calls him safe because his vision stinks.)

[wideawake]

MacPhail ruled not that the bat didn't have too much pine tar on it, but that a penalty not allowed in the rules was applied.

Actually, there was no penalty specified in the rules and in that case it falls squarely under the umpire's prerogative - it was a judgment call.

The umpire absolutely had the authority to do what he did and his call was correct.