So we need a precdent to allow it but we can't set a prescedent by allowing it. Did I get that right?

You certainly can set a precedent by allowing it. But doing so opens the door to a lot of other considerations, many of which you might not be prepared to deal with.

Which is why you don't just make decisions such as this lightly, as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident.

Which is apparently what you want to do.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 6/03/2010
As McClellan said this AM, the FORCE-OUT may not be the end of the play. Other things can occur. What then?
Example: 1st/2nd, 1 out. Double play ball. Phantom touch of 2B, short hops the 1B. Initial runner on 2nd gets caught in a run down as he thinks of scoring before the 1B retrieves the ball. Ball ends up in LF. What do you do with the runner at 2nd, who was called out but was really safe? What if he ran off the field? Maybe he kept running bases just in case? Maybe he was out but he was running the bases because he thought he was safe.

Nightmare.

This is the #1 reason they can't add to replay.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/03/2010
You certainly can set a precedent by allowing it. But doing so opens the door to a lot of other considerations, many of which you might not be prepared to deal with.

Which is why you don't just make decisions such as this lightly, as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident.

Which is apparently what you want to do.

No tec. That's not what I want to do. I want baseball and Selig specifically to man up and admit an error occurred and fix it. Remember the pine tar game tec? Did the world end?

The pine tar incident was an interpretation of the rules, not a bang-bang play.

Quote: Originally Posted By Arte on 6/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/03/2010

You certainly can set a precedent by allowing it. But doing so opens the door to a lot of other considerations, many of which you might not be prepared to deal with.

Which is why you don't just make decisions such as this lightly, as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident.

Which is apparently what you want to do.

No tec. That's not what I want to do. I want baseball and Selig specifically to man up and admit an error occurred and fix it. Remember the pine tar game tec? Did the world end

Baseball and Selig specifically HAVE manned up and admitted that an error occurred. The fix will be to review what they have in place and, presumably, take appropriate actions to try to avoid it from happening again in the future.

What part of this do you not understand?

Devil's advocate:

IIRC, the pine-tar incident was not an 'interpretation of the rules;' it was a clearly-defined rule that Brett broke. However, the rule was dumb as hell - it was very old, and had to do with keeping cleaner balls in play (pine tar dirtied them, so there was a rule on how much could be used).

The commish (rightly, imo) decided the rule had been rendered obsolete. Bud could do the same if he wished - declaring that not using instant replay is 'dumb as hell,' 'archaic,' whatever, etc.

You guys sound like a bunch of old-*** mofos when you comment on how much IR would 'devastate' the game. MikeT called one play a 'nightmare.' LOL. How hard is it to have rules which attempt to award a runner the proper number of bases on a play like that? Not very. Would it be perfect? No, but it would work decently enough. Ever hear of ground-rule 2Bs? They sometimes cost a team a run, but it works OK. Good grief.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By Arte on 6/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/03/2010

You certainly can set a precedent by allowing it. But doing so opens the door to a lot of other considerations, many of which you might not be prepared to deal with.

Which is why you don't just make decisions such as this lightly, as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident.

Which is apparently what you want to do.

No tec. That's not what I want to do. I want baseball and Selig specifically to man up and admit an error occurred and fix it. Remember the pine tar game tec? Did the world end?

Baseball and Selig specifically HAVE manned up and admitted that an error occurred. The fix will be to review what they have in place and, presumably, take appropriate actions to try to avoid it from happening again in the future.

What part of this do you not understand?

That does not address the error that was made and correct it. And you have a precedent now too. You should be spitting happy. Much less invasive than reinstituting a home run and making them start from that point don't you think?

Plus, how long is an average game? Three hours? Even if IR reviews lasted 15 minutes in a game (and let's face it, that's a loooong time), that's - gasp - about 8% of the game w/o replay, and is like 7.5% of the 'extended' game. The argument for making the games 'too long' is total BS.

Inky, I know you're a little slow but, if you're just creating another problem, what's the point? Just so, once every 80-90 years, a pitcher doesn't lose a perfect game? Rather pointless.

I don't think he should change it. The game is what it is, and will be remembered by all baseball fans.

That being said, this "Pandora's Box" BS I'm hearing is ridiculous. You guys sound like a bunch of old-*** grandpas ******** about that newfangled rock 'n' roll music.

Here's what I do if instant replay is instituted for force out plays: I always keep running as if I was safe. Maybe I draw a throw because the other team wants to make sure I'm out. And maybe another runner advances because they're screwing around with me.

Quote: Originally Posted By Arte on 6/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By Arte on 6/03/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 6/03/2010

You certainly can set a precedent by allowing it. But doing so opens the door to a lot of other considerations, many of which you might not be prepared to deal with.

Which is why you don't just make decisions such as this lightly, as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident.

Which is apparently what you want to do.

No tec. That's not what I want to do. I want baseball and Selig specifically to man up and admit an error occurred and fix it. Remember the pine tar game tec? Did the world end?

Baseball and Selig specifically HAVE manned up and admitted that an error occurred. The fix will be to review what they have in place and, presumably, take appropriate actions to try to avoid it from happening again in the future.

What part of this do you not understand?

That does not address the error that was made and correct it. And you have a precedent now too. You should be spitting happy. Much less invasive than reinstituting a home run and making them start from that point don't you think?

No, it doesn't. Nor should it. There is no mechanism currently in place to reverse an umpire's judgement call a day after the fact. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?

And what is the precedent I now have that you are referring to?

And regarding the Pine-Tar incident, which you keep going back to . . . that was an upheld protest on a ruling. Which is quite different from an umpire's judgement call, which is non-protestable. Apples and oranges. Do you understand the difference between a judgement call and a ruling?

Quote: Originally Posted By inkdskn on 6/03/2010
Devil's advocate:

IIRC, the pine-tar incident was not an 'interpretation of the rules;' it was a clearly-defined rule that Brett broke. However, the rule was dumb as hell - it was very old, and had to do with keeping cleaner balls in play (pine tar dirtied them, so there was a rule on how much could be used).

The commish (rightly, imo) decided the rule had been rendered obsolete. Bud could do the same if he wished - declaring that not using instant replay is 'dumb as hell,' 'archaic,' whatever, etc.

You guys sound like a bunch of old-*** mofos when you comment on how much IR would 'devastate' the game. MikeT called one play a 'nightmare.' LOL. How hard is it to have rules which attempt to award a runner the proper number of bases on a play like that? Not very. Would it be perfect? No, but it would work decently enough. Ever hear of ground-rule 2Bs? They sometimes cost a team a run, but it works OK. Good grief.

The Pine-Tar incident was indeed an interpretation of the rule, specifically how the rule should be applied. Lee MacPhail determined that the proper application of the rule should have been to remove the bat from play once it was determined illegal, and not to "void" a play in which the illegal bat was used. Thus, Tim McClelland's overturn of the home run was improper application of the rule and the Royal's protest was upheld.

And I am not against IR going forward. But it needs to be well-defined, similar to how it is used in the NFL. And most importantly, it cannot be used retro-actively to overturn Joyce's call.

The Tigers and Galarraga in particular should be commended for the tremendous class they've shown throughout this entire episode. They took what could have been a very ugly situation and turned it into a positive and Galarraga showed the kind of exceptional grace and sportsmanship that every professional athlete should strive for. Joyce should also be commended for standing up like a man, admitting his mistake and for showing incredible resolve and contrition for his error. Galarraga said it best himself..."Nobody's perfect".