Except that the physical facts are now, unlike in the past of this tradition-bound game, reviewable and independently confirmable. No longer must we count on officials’ calls as being the final word. They, and we, have the technology available to review and correct calls to conform to physical reality. Every sport does it to a large extent now, including baseball.
A deep fly is not a home run or a foul based solely on the umpire’s first call. It’s a home run or a foul based on a record of the physical reality that is technologically available for the umpire to review. And it happens pretty regularly.
So what’s the moral difference, demanding respect and preservation, between a homer/foul call and a safe/out call? I just don’t see it.
Clever…but just because you don’t recognize or acknowledge the existence of the real world (or impose your own world on top of the real one) doesn’t mean there is no real world.
It’s still there…it still exists…as millions of fans can attest in this case.
Millions of fans can attest that the umpire called him safe, and in the reality of the game, that’s the only call that matters.
Every professional game’s reality is defined by umpires or referees–whether on the field or in the TV booths examining replays–call the play. Not how the fans do.
The ump did want to change the call upon learning the physical reality. So why shouldn’t he be allowed to? If it had been a foul-ball call that was a homer in reality, he could have changed it. Again, what’s the diff?
Actually, there’s nothing in the rules that prevents an umpire from changing a call. The rules say that each umpire has his own calls, and they can’t overrule each other – but they can *ask *for help anytime they want, and change a call based on “additional information” that they may not have had prior. The only reason they don’t is tradition and game management best practices.
An ump can change his own call upon consultation with his fellow umps. But he can’t change it once play has resumed. That power rests solely with the commissioner.
I fault Joyce in two ways:
For not consulting with his fellow umps on such a close, historic play.
For not putting the play in context given the situation. If the runner was very obviously safe, then no, he can’t call him out, no matter what the circumstance. But in a historic circumstance such as this play, Joyce should have been prepared to call any CLOSE play at first an out…just as Don Larsen’s third strike was called in 1956 despite questions as to whether it was really in the zone…and just as the strike zone gets larger in the course of a blowout game that everyone (both teams and the umpires) wants to put out of its misery.
What could any of the other umpires have told him during consultation? It is highly doubtful any of them would think they had a better view and they would only do so if they were absolutely sure he was wrong.
Unless the commissioner says otherwise. Or unless instant replay is instituted. Or unless the crew chief overrules the umpire.
There is no hard and fast physical reality to which we must concede a point here. It’s a GAME, and the rules are all artificial. We can make the rules whatever we want. If we want the ump’s call to stand it can stand, but if Bud Selig were to say that the ump’s call is overruled and Donald was out, then that would be so. The commissioner’s decision trumps everything; that’s the rule.
You can’t just stamp your foot here and say the rules can’t be changed because they can’t be. We can make baseball anything we want.
As someone noted earlier, they probably wouldn’t say anything at all, regardless of their view – unless they were asked by the ruling umpire. That’s the point…Joyce didn’t ask.
Unlike in a situation where runners were on base, there is no reason that any of the umpires would have had their attention focused anywhere other than on the play at first base.
Given the situation at any given moment, umpires move in a prescribed direction upon contact of bat and ball.
The home plate umpire – again having no other matter to turn his attention to – would have been moving to his best vantage point to see the play at first.
As Joyce was positioned just inside fair territory down the first base line when he made the call, the second base umpire should have also had an unobstructed view of the play at first, albeit at a greater distance.
if asked by a colleague, any umpire will respond with what he did, or did not see.
The middle option there really isn’t an option in this case.
Sure. So why not just redefine a perfect game as any game in which EITHER no runners ever reach first base under any circumstances OR 26 straight batters don’t reach first base and the ump blows the call on the 27th batter. After all, if you are happy to redefine the rules of the game, why not just redefine a definition and everyone goes home happy.
Why not just rule on a case-by-case basis – evaluating this particular case, weighing all the particulars, and determining that an injustice was done to a pitcher who himself did EVERYTHING required to pitch a perfect game?
There has been a great deal of parsing of language here, to the absurd point of saying “This is a baseball game…there’s no such thing as reality here.” But no one can deny the truth of the last portion of the above paragraph. To repeat: Galarraga did everything required to pitch a perfect game.
What prevented last Wednesday’s game from being a perfect game had nothing to do with what Galarraga failed to accomplish, and everything to do with a mistake the umpire made on the final play of the game.
Why not rule that in this extremely narrow instance – one in which only a personal baseball record is affected, not a team record reflected in the won-loss column or the standings – declaring last Wednesday’s game to be a perfect game is in the best interests of the game.
Or if it’s not in the best interest of the game, explain why not. What no one has ever done in our discussions here is to explain in detail the horrible, unworkable chaos that would descend upon the game of baseball if Selig were to reverse the ruling.
Does anyone honestly believe that the game is filled with players, managers and executives so shallow that they would seize upon every opportunity, no matter how ridiculous it is, and begin an unbearable cascade of whining to have on-field decisions reversed?
Does anyone really believe that no one involved in the sport today has an understanding of the gravity of Galarraga’s situation, as compared to 99.99 percent of other possible situations that could arise?
Does anyone somehow believe that the Commissioner would be so besieged with so many frivolous requests that he would be unable to function?
You keep saying this, but no matter how often you repeat it, it just isn’t true. Go ahead and make another post and say the exact damn thing again. You’ll still be wrong. You can stomp your feet and bold and italics and point to whatever replay you want to point to. A perfect game only exists within the context and definition of the game of baseball. Donald was called safe by the umpire. That, right there, translates into Galarraga not pitching a perfect game.
Bolding mine. We agree. Galarraga did not pitch a perfect game.
Why not just redefine a perfect game? You never answered that. It takes care of both problems. It is so rare as to never happen again, and if it does, the result will be the same as it is now. What is the problem with this solution? Donald doesn’t lose his hit, Galarraga gets credit for a perfect game and there is no appeal needed Selig.
Doesn’t work that way. If you want an exception under the “best interest of the game” clause you need to show why it is in the best interest of baseball. You keep blubbering on about how it is the only decent, humane thing to do, but that is just your opinion. It is not an irrefutable conclusion as is evidenced by the fact that others disagree.
You want this to be in the best interest of baseball because of the rarity of the event. But again, one doesn’t logically follow from the other. Your 4 points earlier about the best interest of baseball were not demonstrations of it, either. Point 1 spoke only of the rarity of the event. Point 2 only says that there are minimal consequences and no game replay necessary. Point 3 says that it has no effect on the larger picture of standings and such. Point 4 is only a counter-argument to why the call should stand. None of these say why baseball is better off having this call reversed.
This is major league baseball. The stakes are HUGE. If you honestly believe that in 1985 people wouldn’t have been SCREAMING at the commissioner to review the blown call you are delusional. How many teams have finished 1 or 2 games out of the playoff would have LOVED to have an opportunity to go banging on the commissioner’s door asking for justice for something far, far more important than a perfect game. You think baseball is ruled by rational, good-spirited, play to win but play with integrity type of people but the Pete Roses and Barry Bonds of the game would seem to indicate otherwise.
My statement, “Galarraga did everything required to pitch a perfect game,” is manifestly true. Twenty-seven batters were either struck out, or put the ball in play in such a way that, under the rules of baseball, they did not reach first base safely.
If you want to resort to the hoary cliché about stomping your feet, I’ll come right back at you and say that you can stomp your feet all you want about what the umpire called – it does NOT obscure what happened in real life, no matter how much you want it to.
In real life, Galarraga’s foot touched first base before Donald’s foot did. That is an incontrovertible fact, agreed to by everyone on the planet, including Jim Joyce. Thus, Galarraga himself did everything required to pitch a perfect game.
Jim Joyce did something, which he now admits was a mistake on his part, which rendered the game imperfect. Galarraga did nothing in the course of the whole of his on-field behavior a week ago to cause this. Thus, Galarraga did everything required to pitch a perfect game. (I’ll eschew the bolding if it pleases you.)
Your reality distortion field reminds me of the old riddle: “How many legs does a cow have if you call the tail a leg?” The answer, of course, is four – because calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
A bad call by an umpire may overturn the reality of what happened on the field for the purposes of a baseball game. In your world, this means that there IS no reality…that what actually happened never happened – that it somehow vanishes from the timeline of events. But in fact, it did happen…and in this extremely narrow instance, there are those who believe that reality ought to be recognized.
For someone who is so doctrinaire about baseball rules, you’ve just proposed an impossible solution. Donald cannot simultaneously make the third out of an inning on a play at first base, and yet also have a hit recorded on the same play.
At every turn, what you want to say is that reasonable people looking at what actually happened on the field and rendering a decision based on that is less preferable to bending over backwards to make some sort of rules-based accommodation to fit a unique situation. Your proposed rules-based accommodation here, though, once again defies the reality of what actually happened.
In other words, a solution is only acceptable if there is 100 percent acceptance of it? Good luck, once again, functioning in the real world with that point of view.
For all your talk, you have yet to demonstrate why a reversal is not in the best interests of baseball. (Hmm…it seems that devices meant to highlight certain words are OK, as long as they’re the ones you use!)
Since the first four didn’t please you, allow me to introduce Point 5. Baseball is a business, a business that depends upon fans being happy, and upon fans not being unhappy. No amount of strutting around with a stick up one’s ass about tradition will change that.
A reversal in this narrow, particular instance, will please millions of fans…because most people understand the concept of justice…and understand that justice trumps almost any other consideration one can name.
It’s incumbent upon you to know say why baseball would not be better off if justice were served in this particular case.
You’ve just articulated for us all exactly why a call in the case can be reversed…because the stakes are NOT high. Thank you.
I would fine with the Commissioner making the change to this game, and clearly explaining that he was able to make this change precisely because the outcome of the game was not affected in any way…that only a personal record was affected.
You, on the other hand, believe that it is utterly impossible for the Commissioner to make a common-sense ruling and articulate the reasons behind it, simply because there are no “rules” he can use as a crutch to do so.
While the appeal of baseball is that the game on the field today is essentially the same game that was played in 1903, that’s not to say that there have been no changes since them. As with all change, it’s an evolutionary process.
As things evolve, as the instant replay is considered for applications beyond what it is today, then rules may fall into place that make dealing with a situation such as Galarraga’s easier.
Until that time, for the purposes of serving justice and acknowledging reality, sometimes it’s necessary to step up to the plate and make a bold decision in absence of rules.
Once again, because something is not at 100 percent, therefore then it must be at 0 percent. Your statement here does absolutely nothing to refute my statement (I’ve bolded certain parts of it for your convenience, as it turns out this is apparently necessary to your understanding after all):
This again, eh? Whatever. Say it a few more hundred times and you might start to believe it. Good luck with that.
I’m pretty sure I’m the one with reality on my side. If not, can you please tell me whether or not Galarraga pitched a perfect game? Just a yes or no answer, please. Either he did or he didn’t.
Did Galarraga pitch a perfect game? Yes or no?
Actually, what I’ve proposed is exactly what you’ve proposed. You just want it neat and tidy in the box score for some strange reason and would prefer to open the can of worms involving the commissioner’s office and decades of tradition. For someone so cavalier about the rules of baseball, you certainly seem to have a stick up your ass about how it looks in the box score. What difference does it make if you redefine a perfect game to be what happened here vs. what it was traditionally known as? Why is changing the rules of baseball better than simply changing the definition of a perfect game?
Also, you never answered my question about what should happen if Donald was called out but replay showed he was safe. Should the commissioner have stepped in and declared it a non-perfect game? If not, why is it so important the sanctity of a perfect game be preserved now but not in the case of a tainted third out?
Now you only need to say it 437 more times to believe it. Keep going!
You are the one bending over backwards trying to find a reason why this call should be changed. You keep grasping at straw after straw for why this is in the best interest of baseball and why a completely unprecedented step needs to be taken. I’m just playing by the rules. How is that bending over backwards?
Strawman. I never said that.
I don’t have to. I have the rules of baseball which tell me I’m right.
Right. I’m sure Selig is losing sleep worrying about the millions of fans that won’t ever see another baseball game because Donald was called safe. Do you honestly believe this call has cost baseball a significant number of fans?
The only people who care aren’t going to give up on baseball because of this call. And there are many fans who think reversing the call is the wrong thing to do. You nor I really know the numbers either way, so arguing the number of fans it pleases or didn’t please is meaningless. You’re guessing.
Again, the rules of baseball say I have no such responsibility. I’m not trying to change an existing rule. You are. If you want something changed, you need to show why it should be.
You keep putting out these strawman arguments and mis-categorizing what I say. In both the World Series “no rain shortened games” and all-star game decisions he made I agreed with him. I viewed both those as common-sense ruling with articulated reasons.
Unfortunately for you, we have rules to cover this situation.
And once again, you’ve completely mis-categorized what I’ve said. It is you who see this as either 100 or 0, not me. You used the words “filled”, “every opportunity”, “no matter how ridiculous”, and “no one”. I simply said that teams with a real stake on the outcome of almost every game would make use of this new precedent. Do you honestly believe teams wouldn’t try to find a way to make a bad call that has playoff implications a reason for appeal should this appeal be upheld? In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, it isn’t done today because it has never succeeded. Once you allow an exception, again, in my opinion, more will surely follow. But this is where you stand on your argument that it be defined in this narrow case only. And the circle goes on…
Thanks, but that won’t be necessary. I already believe the truth of my statement, which, to refresh your memory, is “Galarraga did everything required to pitch a perfect game.” I’m sorry you can’t grasp such a simple truth, but I’ll try yet another rewording, in hopes that maybe this time you’ll get it.
If there is any part of the following statement that is untrue, please point it out:
Galarraga did everything required to pitch a perfect game. There is not a single physical action that Galarraga took on the field of play that in any way rendered the game he participated in anything less than a perfect game.
That Joyce made a mistake that prevented the game from being certified as a perfect game does not mean that Galarraga’s physical actions up to the point of the call didn’t happen. Joyce’s call does not alter what Galarraga physically did on the field of play. They do not change the physical reality of Galarraga’s foot touching the first base bag before Donald’s.
Well, counselor, any time you start demanding Yes or No answers to nuanced questions, we know your argument is in trouble.
Tell you what…remember my example from earlier in the thread?
*I punch you in the nose. There are no witnesses.
You call the cops, but the cop that shows up is my brother, and he refuses to file a police report. He tells you that if you make an issue out of it, he’ll throw YOU in jail.
Therefore, despite the blood running down your face, I didn’t punch you in the nose…right?*
How about answering the question that arises from this example…Did I punch you in the nose? Yes or No.
Note that when I first asked the question, you didn’t give me a Yes or No answer…you qualified your response.
Now you have another chance to answer without qualification. Did I punch you in the nose? Yes or No.
No, it’s not. You propose a perfect game with a batter being credited with a hit, a solution that completely defies logic.
I propose a perfect game with a box score that reflects a perfect game, including a putout and assist on the final play – which is what happened (brace yourself for this ugly term rearing its head again) in real life. (Sorry for the bolding, but you seem to have inordinate trouble grasping this simple concept.)
Ah, the old “can of worms” bit again…a can that you’ve been utterly unconvincing in arguing for the existence of. You’ve ignored my reasonable offer that it be made clear that the change in scoring is made solely because only a personal record, rather that the outcome of the game, is affected.
This is laughable. Apparently “Don’t mess with the way it’s always been” is only a counter argument to the solutions someone else proposes. When it’s a solution you propose (fashioning the first box score in Major League history to reflect a perfect game with the opposing team credited with a hit), then that’s, uh, perfectly OK.
Show me another example in Major League history of a batter failing to reach first base safely (i.e., producing an out) and being credited with a hit.
My solution contains no such nonsense.
Because we don’t know what the circumstances will be in the unlikely event that something as weird and unprecedented as last Wednesday’s game occurs again. Why do you have such a fear of the complete inability of the baseball men and women of the future being able to assess all aspects of a hypothetical case and apply reason to the solution?
I know this will come as a tremendous shock to your sensibilities, but I’m a human being, with human emotions tied to the game of baseball. I always thought that most other baseball fans fit this description too. I’ve been rather surprised to encounter at least one person whom this description does not fit.
I’m very comfortable with saying that – unless there were a firestorm of protest from the opposing team agitating for a change in the call, and a similar groundswell of popular opinion comparable to that his arisen from this real (as opposed to hypothetical) situation – the call could stand, and the world would go right on spinning on its axis.
That’s because I’m a baseball fan – and I realized that, on the rarest and most extraordinary occasions, taking the stick out of one’s ass can actually be a good thing, and that there’s a way that reasonable people can do this without invoking all kinds of scary monsters of the future.
Probably not. Most of us love the game too much to stay away from it. But it’s cost the game some goodwill, and heightened the dissatisfaction with the game’s number-one executive, which was already high.
Let me turn the question around…if Selig had reversed the call, would millions of fans been upset and stayed away from baseball games in protest?
We can go round and round about this, but the bottom line is I see substantial positives resulting from a reversal of the call and the declaration that last week’s game was a perfect game. I do not see substantial negatives resulting from it, and believe that your vague attempts to conjure them up have been wholly unsuccessful.
And one more thing…your scary monsters are all hypotheticals…the positive gain from a reversal would be here, and now, and real.
I agree that without a scientifically conducted poll, we can’t know what the ratio is of opposing thoughts on this issue. An unscientific poll, however, based on my viewing of a ton of comments on the mlb.com site in the days following the game, gave me an indication that the sentiment was very heavily in favor of changing the call – and also that substantial numbers of people think Selig is a spineless idiot.
In your do-nothing scenario, you’re not. But in your alternate solution of calling it a perfect game but awarding Donald a hit, you’re proposing a far more dramatic change than I am…one that has substantially less precedent (zero, in fact) than my solution.
Because I’m not trying change an existing rule either…I’m trying to grant a one-time exception to it under extraordinary circumstances – just as happens in real life. The rule still remains in place. If last Wednesday’s game had come about in a different fashion – for instance, if the blown call was in the sixth inning rather than the last of the ninth with two outs – I would be singing a different tune.
That’s because with a blown call then, there is still a future timeline for the game to work through before it’s concluded, and anything can happen within that timeline. A correct call on the third out of the ninth inning means there is no future timeline.
I find it interesting that you completely ignored these two paragraphs and answered only one that followed. This is in fact a very crucial aspect of the solution I propose, yet you seem to have no argument against it.
What else can I infer with your continued appeal to the rules as inviolate…the position that no exceptions can be granted to them under any circumstances because…well, horrible, scary stuff will happen in the future…and besides, they’re the rules, and “It’s always been this way”?
Ah, now suddenly it’s a different tune you’re singing.
I believe the same common-sense approach can be applied to this situation, and equally compelling reasons articulated.
I believe that citing the examples of Barry Bonds and Pete Rose, two players whose alleged crimes have absolutely nothing to do with the rules governing play of the game on the field, does nothing to bolster your contention that teams would seize the exception granted to make a rash of appeals to the Commissioner for reversals.
Exactly how do you work out that players who take steroids to enhance their performance in a game or place bets on games are more likely to not understand the import of game situations governed by the rulebook, and thus be more likely to want to exploit them?
And how do you work out that the number of players who committed crimes commensurate with Bonds’ and Rose’s (a small percentage of the total number of Major League players from the last several decades) equates to widespread dishonesty within the game, and legions of players and management types who are not “rational, good-spirited, play to win but play with integrity type of people”?
They would not, if the Commissioner made it clear that he was able to reverse the call in the Galarraga game only because it affected a personal record and had no effect on the game’s outcome (remember, the part of my proposal you conveniently ignored?).
Yes, narrow case…extremely narrow case. The positives of the reversal I propose would be many…the negatives nonexistent.
That is easy. He allowed a runner to reach first base. If that is an incorrect statement, please point to the box score showing he pitched a perfect game.
You ignored my question. It was pretty simple, I thought. But I’ll answer yours. No, you did not punch me in the nose. Now will you please answer mine? Yes or no. Did Galarraga pitch a perfect game? If you answer yes, please provide the game in which he did it along with the boxscore showing the perfect game.
I don’t have any issues when people bold points that actually further their point instead of using it to try and bolster an invalid point to make it look like it might be important or somehow valid. You are doing the latter.
Do you consider what Galarraga did to be a perfect game, despite what Selig and Major League Baseball are calling it? If so, you are doing what I’ve proposed. RickJay has indicated he considers it a perfect game. It really isn’t that far fetched as far as I can tell. It still seems to me you are trying to force the box score to reflect what you want to have happened. But it works out to the same thing. An error was made on the field, so the pitcher should get credited with a perfect game. How is that so different?
Well, okay, if you say so. My own personal experiences are that once exceptions are made, people do try to use such a precedent to bolster seemingly unrelated instances. It happens continually in politics. How many times have supports of either party, when caught doing something on the fringe, point to the other party and say, “but they did it first!”. If your experiences are that people don’t use prior exceptions unless they match up exactly with their present situation, I can see why you’d call my “can of worms” argument laughable and unconvincing. I guess we have just different experiences in such things.
Again, you are mis-characterizing what I’m saying, but I guess this is the way you want to argue it. My solution to this whole thing is to not change a thing. No perfect game and no interference by Selig. You seem hell bent on finding a way to get Galarraga a perfect game, so I made a proposal that might fit in with both our views. I guess it didn’t fly.
Obviously I can’t. Because the rules of baseball are such that this isn’t how scoring is done. But you are the one that seems determined to fix a perceived wrong to fit real life. My solution is consistent with both the rules and spirit of the game of baseball.
I don’t, actually. I’m the one who in this case thinks reason was applied to this situation. It might not be the reasoning you would use, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable. In the future, if weird cases come up where something is at stake and need a bold step to correct, I trust the leaders of baseball to make the right decision. Just like in this case.
I took a poll of my friends this evening, and every one agreed with Selig’s call. It isn’t by any means scientific, but it does indicate we move in different circles. I have no doubt the naysayers of the Selig decision were the loudest, but that doesn’t make them the majority.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument why this is in the best interest of baseball was that it would cost baseball many fans. But now you seem to be saying it probably won’t. Am I missing something here? You claim it is costing some goodwill, but does that really rise to the level “in the best interest of baseball” to such a degree that as severe step as this needs to be taken?
Again, it is incumbent upon you to show that baseball would be better off if Selig reversed the call. It matters not one whit if the opposite wouldn’t cost any fans.
We are free to disagree. Obviously I don’t see the positives you are talking about and as I alluded to earlier, my own experiences are that people, in general, will exploit any opportunity for their own gain, especially in a situation where the stakes are so high.
Can you point me to the precedent where the commissioner of baseball reversed the judgment call of an umpire? I honestly don’t know of one. Maybe if you squint the George Brett pine-tar situation counts, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me. If it has happened, then you are correct, there is more precedent for your solution than mine. But here again, you are using a precedent to try and make an argument for why the call should be reversed in this case. If a previous call was reversed, I’m sure it was done with the thought that it was a very narrow and specific situation.
You are only further demonstrating my point. People will use try to use precedent to their own advantage. Either there is no precedent for this type of thing, in which case I think it is reasonable to expect that only the most extraordinary of situations calls for such a step, or it does exist. If it does exist, then if this exact, narrow situation occurred before we’d know the right thing to do. If it isn’t this exact, narrow situation, you are doing exactly what I predicted people would do… molding previous, somewhat related situations to try and change this situation.
That is hair-splitting. If, under the same situation in the future the same call should and will be made, then this is a new rule. An exception is a one time thing. I’m failing to see how this wouldn’t be the new standard for awarding a perfect game.
That makes sense I figured this was your reasoning. I’m not sure it is wholly consistent with your argument about the sanctity of a perfect game, but I understand it.
Not quite true. I figured we’ve been down that road and I wasn’t going to tread that ground again. But if you insist. On the one hand, you consider a perfect game to be of such monumental importance that the commissioner needs to take an unprecedented (unless, from above, you provide some precedence for it) step of overruling and umpire on a judgment call. Where you see “low stakes”, I see my same tired, old argument of setting a bad precedent, which is no longer low stakes. I understand you don’t see the problem with this, which is fair.
Again, you are mis-representing me. I never said no exception can be granted under any circumstances. I said in this case no exception should be granted. There is a pretty big difference there.
Obviously, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I think common-sense was applied, and compelling reasons articulated for why Selig should not get involved. You make a good case for why he should, but I don’t agree with it.
Pete Rose bet on baseball. Barry Bonds took PEDs (granted, at the time that might not have been against the rules of baseball, but that seems to be a technicality). Gaylord Perry doctored baseballs. Pitchers threw spitters well beyond the date they were allowed. Sosa and corked bats. Manny and PEDs after they were banned. The list goes on and on of players who violated the rules governing play all in the name of trying to win. I cited two obvious examples, but do you really believe baseball doesn’t have a very long list of cheaters? People who would do whatever it takes to win if they could get away with it?
I’m not sure I understand your question here. Are you asking me how I go from thinking players who would do almost anything to win would try and exploit exceptions to try and win more games? You seem to be asking why I don’t think these same players wouldn’t respect the rule book and not try to cheat to win. Wasn’t it Ty Cobb who said if you aren’t cheating you aren’t trying?
See above.
Huh. I thought I had addressed it when I talked about how people would be screaming for this type of review when the stakes really meant something. I’m sorry I didn’t make that more clear.
You obviously are a very eloquent speaker and I’m sure you make a great counselor. Seriously. You are doing wonderfully twisting my words and mis-characterizing what I say and then slipping in non-existent conclusions. All the while make nice little jab comments to try and belittle not my argument, but me. I’m impressed. I’m not convinced one bit that you have a basis for your arguments, but I’m sure you are making points with someone.
Up to this point, I thought I was having a discussion with a rational human being who happened to hold a view that was different from mine.
As you stand there with blood streaming down your face and state “No, you didn’t punch me in the nose,” it’s clear to me that I was mistaken.
It’s clear that you will cling to any rationalization, no matter how twisted, to support your point of view. It’s clear you will go to the ends of the earth and do the written equivalent of singing “La la la la” while plugging your ears forever, as long as you believe it helps you avoid any consideration of events that actually took place in real life.
In real life, Galarraga’s foot touched first base before Donald’s…thus, he did everything required for him to pitch a perfect game. I’d ask you to dispute the truth of that statement, but frankly, don’t bother.
Sorry, I won’t be bound by your restrictions. That you impose them at all, as I noted, indicates that you know your position is tenuous.
Did Galarraga pitch a perfect game? Yes he did. His on-field actions, at every single step of the way, add up to a perfect game.
Did Joyce call it a perfect game? No, he didn’t. He was wrong, he admitted his error, but according you, there’s no possible way of rectifying this. The very simple, direct and limited, one-time remedy I propose will lead to chaos.
According to you, even if the Commissioner says “I’m reversing this ruling because it affects only a personal record, not a game outcome, so don’t even think about coming to me in the future and asking that I reverse a decision that affects a game outcome, because I won’t do it” – the office will still be flooded with frivolous requests from the legions of dishonest (and downright stupid) baseball players, managers and executives who somehow don’t understand the word “no.” This onslaught will be so overwhelming and grievous that the office of the Commissioner will be rendered helpless and unable to function.
OK…
As you once said, I have answers for everything else you’ve written, but I find at this juncture that it’s no longer worth the effort of writing them out.
Please feel free to crow about your “victory” here, and say whatever you like in response to this. I’m content to let you have the last word.
Until you reconsider your answer to my question about punching you in the nose, all further discussion between us is futile. I prefer the assurance of knowing that the person I’m having a discussion with is playing with a full deck.