His name will always remain on our lips now
He deserves it, but a week from now when his name comes up, it will always be the guy you see on the card.
Posted on 06/03/2010 1:08:24 PM PDT by presidio9
The designated hitter, OTOH, would work just fine in both leagues.
On the flip side . . . there is no avenue under which a team can formally protest what is simply a bad call by the umpire -- even a blatantly bad call. And even if there was, there is no point in re-playing anything if the ultimate outcome of the game wasn't affected by the call.
It’s called “sometimes life just ain’t fair!” But of course, today everyone is a victim, wanting a “do-over”, free money, or “death” to a scapegoat.
His name will always remain on our lips now
He deserves it, but a week from now when his name comes up, it will always be the guy you see on the card.
In the pine-tar game, the Commissioner’s ruling was that the umpire erred in interpreting the rules when he called Brett out for having used a bat with pine tar that was too high up (on the label), and the home run should thus be reinstated (but the bat confiscated and not being eligible to be used in a game again). The blown call last night was not an error in rule interpretation, but an error in a judgment call (safe or out), which is an entirely different thing. Judgment calls need to be made (and corrected, if other umps had a better view) at the game by the umpires, not by the Commissioner.
Fwiw, there is no need to play anything over, it would have hurt no one, and it would have righted a significant wrong.
He could have and should have called it like it was, a bad call that robbed a player of one of the rarest feats in professional sports.
I was amazed at how gracious he and his manager were. That’s a class organization, at least it was on this day.
” Don’t worry, the Almighty Obama will make a pronouncement and all will be as he says. “
From your keyboard to Lord O’s ears —
“White House: Baseball should reverse ump’s mistake”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2527173/posts
I love my MLB! No do over! No replay! Just my 2 cents! :4)
He could have and should have called it like it was, a bad call that robbed a player of one of the rarest feats in professional sports.
I watched this episode of "Deal or No Deal" where the contestant meant to open suitcase 17, and gave a reason for choosing it. Something about family birthdays. Everybody knew she wanted suitcase 17: Howie, the audience, the models, her family. The family got a confused look on their faces when she told the model to open suitcase 7, not 17. Howie was confused. But they followed her direction and did it. Wouldn't you know it? The $1,000,000 was in suitcase 7, but of course there was no way to go back and replay the call. That's baseball.
Another thing ... I successfully umpired baseball games for 14 years there’s a way to handle this that most baseball players and managers don’t seen to know ...
Baseball rule 9.02c says: “If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before meaing a final decision. No umpire shall critize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.”
Given a call such as that which happened, all a manager needs to do is ask the “bad-call” umpire to “ask another umpire.” Then, if that umpire decides to ask another umpire, the other umpire is duty bound to truth ... and etc.
The Spurs argued that the fake shot by Nixon should have been re shot, and next time the two teams played they finished the earlier game from the point of the second free throw, before the regularly scheduled contest. Nixon intentionally missed the shot but this time the Lakers could not get the ball and the game ended with a Spurs victory.
Here's another one:
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/4325/the-rarest-of-nba-treats-a-game-protest-is-granted
On a related note . . . An interesting incident occurred back in the early 1990s during an NHL playoff game. Here's the Wikipedia entry about it, which pretty much reflect my recollection . . .
Van Hellemond was involved in a rare case of a bad call by a referee resulting in a fine. During a game on May 14, 1995, Van Hellemond waved off a goal scored by Joe Sakic of the Quebec Nordiques, calling the play dead due to an apparent injury to New York's Alexei Kovalev. Kovalev was, in fact, not injured, and the puck had also entered the net before Van Hellemond's whistle sounded. At the time, video replay could not be used to determine if the whistle had sounded prior to the puck crossing the goal line. The Rangers eventually won the game in overtime to take a 3–1 series lead and later won the series in six games. Van Hellemond was fined by the NHL, who cited a "glaring error in judgment," according to the November 20, 2007 issue of The Hockey News.
The interesting thing about this was that the NHL actually has a process in place to levy fines against its officials (I seem to remember that Van Hellemond was fined $10,000 for this).
I was most impressed with how he handled himself, but do believe they should have stopped the game, conferenced in other refs while replaying it and change the call then and there.
My husband had just called me in to watch the last inning of the game to watch him pitch a perfect game, and it was so disappointing to watch such a horrendous call.
If he hadn’t gotten cancer in the prime of his career, he’d probably have been the first Venezualan player elected to the HOF last year. On the plus side, that clearly would have made Uncle Hugo’s week.
Who cares?
I've seen it a few times on plays at home plate -- involving a home plate umpire who basically turns to another umpire and says something to this effect: "I know the runner arrived at the plate ahead of the throw, but when he slid past the plate my view was blocked by the catcher and I didn't see whether he touched the plate."
If the home plate umpire knows one thing (the runner arrived ahead of the tag) and the other umpire confirms the other (the runner did, in fact, touch home plate), then the correct call will be made after they meet to discuss it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.