dat dude;378228 wrote:Are you arguing that procedurally "you (who is you?) can't just up and make one?" Or are you arguing in a sense that it "just wouldn't be right?" Because it is my understanding that Selig would have the ability to issue a ruling to change a call should he feel so inclined.

I'm sure Bud and the office of the commissioner of baseball could change it so baseball is played with 11 men in party hats on a long field and you can't touch the ball with your hands if he really wanted to. But it sets an insane precedent to go back and change something that happened in the field of play, during the course of play, of which the rule is clear -- the umpire's ruling is the correct call.

9.02
(a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.

Where would the changes stop? Would teams appeal cases to the commissioner about close games they had this season, or calls they felt went the wrong way?

Make the rule change, say from this point forward, plays like this one can be reviewed during the course of play (like goals can be reviewed, or home runs, or 3-point shots). But don't open the can of worms that says we'll be open to criticism on every bad call that has already passed.

I guess I just make an obvious distinction between the Joyce call and opening "criticism on every bad call that has already passed." As I said before, this is a one in a million (undoubtedly more) occurrence. It would be a one-time ruling, no precedent needing to be set. The premise being that EVERYONE agrees on the call that should have been made and there will be no effect on the outcome of the game. It is much different than a close play in the 4th inning. It would be different if the Indians then rallied for three or four runs and forced more action. But, they didn't, as the next batter was retired. I'm not asking for a precedent, just for an equitable, one-time ruling.

Yeah, I suppose that's the difference in our opinions. I think other teams would latch onto it and say "hey, why them but not us? If we would've been ruled safe on that close play ... etc etc."

if Selig wants to make a meaningful contribution, this may be the time to once again implement discussion regarding a reasonable use of instant replay during the course of the game; but I agree with others, and have earlier said...
establishing a precedent where disagreements of on-the-field rulings are settled long after the fact would be a disaster which would seriously undermine the authority and autonomy of the umpiring personnel.

Sad for Gallarraga, but the game must stand on its own....

gorocks99;378215 wrote:The issue is not if there needs to be a rule in place; the issue is in overturning something when there is NO RULE in place. If this leads to the rule, that's great -- but because there is NO RULE about it currently on the books, you can't just up and make one that applies posthumously for this play ONLY.

Fay Vincent did back in '91 where he and some others basically threw out 50 some odd no-hitters that had happened over the years... the details for me are fuzzy as to why but he's the only one who ever did it (besides Kennesaw Mountain Landis in the Black Sox scandal) and I'm pretty sure he took a ton of flack for it

killdeer;378290 wrote:if Selig wants to make a meaningful contribution, this may be the time to once again implement discussion regarding a reasonable use of instant replay during the course of the game; but I agree with others, and have earlier said...
establishing a precedent where disagreements of on-the-field rulings are settled long after the fact would be a disaster which would seriously undermine the authority and autonomy of the umpiring personnel.

Sad for Gallarraga, but the game must stand on its own....

Agreed