What I found interesting about the ESPN article is the legal scholars have said primary right’s go to the Cardinals before anyone else.
What I found interesting about the AP article is that one of the arguments advanced in explaining why the “legal consensus” is against Mientkiewicz is the one Minty Green put forth in this thread.
Obviously this isn’t set in stone unless the matter goes to trial (probably unlikely) and a judge agrees with this line of reasoning, but it’s looking more and more like tradition doesn’t trump the rule of law.
Players throw balls out to the fans all the time, and keep those that are personal milestones. If something it isn’t legally yours, it isn’t yours to give away. Moreover, all baseballs are created equal. If the ball isn’t Mientkiewicz’s, he’s the first in a really long history of players doing whatever they want with baseballs to get held accountable for it.
I think everyone in this thread is ignoring the clear precedents of Finders v. Losers and Keepers v. Weepers.
Raygun99, I knew there was a reason I keep coming back to this thread. Thanks!
And yet they didn’t explain why the Cardinals would have the superior claim, which is rather poor legal writing (par for the course when it comes to the media, I’m afraid). It may be under the assumption that the home team owns the balls originally, which may or may not be the case.
As for why Mientkiewicz is the first guy to come out on the losing end of tradition, that’s pretty simple: Balls have never been worth that much until now, so there was never any incentive to challenge a player walking off the field with one.
That is the assumption, but it is not the case, as we’ve gone over in some detail already in this thread. :rolleyes:
Re precedent vs. practice, call it whatever the hell you like. :rolleyes:
As you may have noted, had read my multiple posts on the subject, one of the principal grounds of my argument was the assumption – based on certain statements by MLB – that MLB, not the teams, own the balls that are put into play. If that is not the case, and the balls are actually the property of the home team, then the legal analysis is somewhat altered.
Re: Your inability to tell the difference between practice and precedent, I merely refer you to the English langauge.
Re: Your use of the :rolleyes: function, I bow to your mad technological skillz and concede my complete inability to counter your pixellated pictogram. Damn you, vBulletin!
Unfortunately a big problem with this debate is certain very relevant and important information has not been disclosed:
- Certain specifics behind said legal scholars reasoning has yet to be revealed, and again, a thousand opinions of a thousand legal scholars isn’t worth one opinion of one judge/jury if this thing does end up going to trial.
The biggest void is how do they come to the Cardinals having rights primarily?
- MLB is vague in all respects as to who owns the baseballs. After extensive perusing of MLB’s official rules the only reference I received was the fairly vague mention that MLB will distribute the balls before play and they shall not be opened by anyone save the umpire, and the umpire can inspect all balls before play.
So MLB definitely has exclusive rights to distribute and manage the balls before the game (and probably during the game too, if the umps want to examine a ball for trickery no one can say “no” except maybe a fan.)
But maybe MLB has it set up so home teams directly pay for said balls? Who knows, that’s one of the few situations I can think of where the Cardinals have primary rights to the ball. Unless somehow hitting a ball into play is deemed a clear cut case of primary ownership over catching a ball in play.
It wouldn’t necessarily be that strange of a situation I guess (as far as MLB handling but team owning the ball.) A lot of the teams these days either own or hold all operating rights to their home stadium (actually I think all of them have full control of their home stadiums now that Toronto bought the SkyDome.) But just because you control the stadium doesn’t mean for example you can violate certain MLB rules.
A team would get in pretty deep trouble if they decided they could alter the mound dramatically just because they officially owned the land and mound in question.