I feel awful about Galarraga's missed perfect game but the final results should stand

[LynneSin]

I know that really sucks. I've seen the play and clearly the batter was out and the ump was wrong.

But MLB does not have instant replay rules and to change the results of the game would go against the way MLB is structured.

I feel bad for the pitcher - pitching a perfect game is something that is extremely rare in baseball and puts you in the same league with legendary pitchers like Cy Young, Don Larsen, Sandy Koufax, Catfish Hunter, and Dennis Martinez and other great pitchers. Even if you never make the Hall of Fame your name will still be on that magical list. It's an amazing feat that this pitcher is losing out on and it will probably never ever be repeated by him again.

But like I said - there is no instant replay in MLB. Bad calls are a part of the game and unfortunately for Galarraga and the fans of the Tigers, they were smacked hard with the reality of how baseball is structured.

However, perhaps it is time to challenge the instant replay rule. I think after a few stutters the NFL has finally put together a great instant replay rule. With baseball we could limit it to so many per game and if you go with instant replay and you're wrong. If the team on offense makes the request and is wrong they would receive an out. If the team on defense makes the request and is wrong - the offense team is rewarded a base (like a walk or hit by pitch).

It is time to change the laws but unfortunately it may be too late for this game.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Maybe Jim Joyce subconsiously thought two perfect games in a span of a week would have been too much

Just a theory. Given that this is the first year in modern baseball history where we've had two perfectos in a year.

[LynneSin]

2. Perhaps or perhaps he just didn't get a good angle on the play

It's not like these umpires have cameras in 20 different locations that they can use to review a play to ensure they make the right call.

[MrCoffee]

6. Joyce unequivocally admits that he flat blew the call

Listen to his post-game remarks. He absolutely knows he fucked up

"I just missed the damn call. I missed it from here to the wall."

[NewJeffCT]

3. How about if they changed the rule tomorrow

or next week or next month, and made it retroactive to the perfect game?

[LynneSin]

4. Not keen on it but I wouldn't be upset either

I mean then anyone else who could prove a bad call was made on them could insist their call be overturned.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. I don't think we need a replay in MLB

If it's like the replay review in NFL, it'll slow down an already slow game.

And, if disputes are settled with long reviews by a team of umpires, the time-honored practice of kicking dirt on an umpires shoes will lose its emotional impact. Unless kicking dirt on an umpires shoes is the accepted signal that a manager would like a play reviewed. Then I guess it would be ok.

As a Tiger fan, I'm just glad they won. Maybe this will be the first perfect game with 28 outs.

:hi:

[HughBeaumont]

7. a. It was against the offense-void Indians, so does this game have an asterisk? (JK!)

b. That being said, that call was totally blown and he should get the perfect game.

c. Galarraga will face the Indians again, so you never know.

[LisaM]

13. Even against a bad offensive team....

he still hadn't even given up a walk!

[Cant trust em]

8. Why the hell was this guy trying to beat out the throw?

I know that players are trying to hussle and make a play, but this is a damn perfect game. I'm pissed that the ump missed the call, but I would really want the hitter to think a little bit. Getting an out sucks, but who wants to be that guy?

[MrCoffee]

10. Because he's not a complete douchebag?

Hey, a hit is a hit, doesn't matter if it comes on the first pitch of the game or the last out of a perfect game.

What you want it to be is a legitimate hit, which is exactly what Jason Donald was going for. If he fairly beats the throw to first, that's good baseball.

What you never, ever want is some guy walking to first on a bloop single in order to preserve the other team's lead, even in a perfect game.

[Cant trust em]

14. I would agree if it weren't the last out.

Perfect game is a unique circumstance.

[MrCoffee]

15. Not enough to cheat

That would be like betting on games you're managing/playing in or something equally disgusting.

[Cant trust em]

16. It would be like that, but not the same thing.

I remember a few years ago when Brett Favre gave Michael Strahan an easy pass when Strahan was going for his record for sacks in a season. There was a little bit of talk about it, but not much.

Had I been in that situation, I think I could live with myself.

[LynneSin]

11. You know that's what I thought when Dickie Thon got a hit against Tom Browning in the 9th...

back on July 4th 1989. Tom Browning was 2 outs from a perfect game - at that point why not just let him have it? But then again no one wants to be the team on the losing end of a perfect game. It's like saying "We so totally suck we couldn't get a hit at all"

Then again Tom Browning/Perfect game trivia. A year earlier Browning had a perfect game against the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was the only time the losing team of a perfect game ended up being World Series Champions.

[LisaM]

12. I am not even sure it's legal to slow up to let them get an out

it would be like throwing the game.

[Mojambo]

21. Because he has respect for the game and his opponent.

No pitcher wants a perfect game where the opponent wasn't doing absolutely their best.

[Cant trust em]

9. I hope they put him in the record books as having pitched a perfect game, but with an asterisk

Just have the asterisk say that he ump blew the final call allowing a runner on base. The pitcher went on to get the win.

[charlie and algernon]

17. or have the asterisk say that he had a perfect game with 28 outs

[jobycom]

18. There are good arguments for overturning it, too, though.

Personally, if I were advising the commish, I'd advise against it, but if I were the commish, I'd do it. Sounds contradictory, and I guess it is, but to me the rules and the history of the game very clearly say the ruling should stand, and that's what I'd advise. On the other hand, this is the perfect opportunity to go Kennisaw Mountain Landis and rewrite the rules to fit extraordinary circumstances, so if I were the commish, I'd overturn the ruling.

Here are my arguments as to why: First, it's a completely unique situation, and talks of the slippery slope aren't valid. The game would not be changed in any way, except for lacking one additional batter in the game. The right call was obvious, and even though there are other times when a bad call can be proven and does have an impact on the game, changing the ruling would change the outcome of the game, and that would be unfair to every team, since errors are supposed to average out. In this case, nothing would be changed except a single out and the status of the game.

Second, the commish already has the power to change a game. When an umpire's ruling is officially protested on the field, the commish has to decide after the game if the protest is valid. If so, the commish can have the game replayed from the point of that challenge. That does change the outcome of a game. There was no protest filed in this game, and you can only protest an ump's interpretation of the rules, not a blown call, but there is still some precedent for reversing a proven error on the field, even if it changes the game. In this case, the error was proved, admitted to, and obvious to everyone. If that play is treated as a de facto protest, the commish can rule that the wrong call was made, reversing the call, and ordering the rest of the game to be replayed. Since it was the last out of the game, there is no more game to play. So it can be done by fitting it into an existing protest structure, with only minor exceptions being made.

Third, it's just a once in a generation type error, and wouldn't set a precedent that could be applied in other cases. There are always missed homeruns and foul balls and missed outs, but it's very rare that these are the only deciding factor in a game. Even a blown out call on the final play of a game doesn't negate the fact that both teams had chances all through the game to score more points. In the Galaragga game, that's not the case. No previous or subsequent effort is changed or negated, because it's only an issue of a box score tally.

I've thought about this a bit. :) Anyway, I'd be surprised if they change the ruling, and I don't think they should, but I'd still love Selig to for once show some courage and make the exception. I doubt there are many who would complain.

[LynneSin]

19. Selig is an asshole - always has been always will be.

Only way Selig would change it is if it would somehow benefit his team the Milwaukee Brewers. Notice that when one team had to move to the National League Bud was all over that like a cheap suit? He knew that the change would help attendance for a few years (and I think a new stadium was being opened).

I can't stand Selig, he always has been and always win run MLB like an owner because he was at one time an owner.

[jobycom]

20. I don't think much of him either.

He has no sense for how to promote the sport. He tried a bunch of gimmics to boost scoring, and turned his head on the whole steroids issue because he thinks people only watch baseball for the home runs. Then, when he had a couple of great home run chases (McGwire, then Bonds), he couldn't figure out how to capitalize on it for the sport. When the steroids scandal exploded, he lost all the good will the home run battles had generated. He just sits there and dreams up cheap promotions and misses the real beauty of the game.

Here's a good chance for him to do something strong to improve baseball's image. Even if he allows the call to stand, he can use this to generate discussion about the sport and instant replay, and get people to talking and caring about the game again. A strong stand, even an unpopular one (and I think either decision here would be accepted, anyway), generates passion for the game, and that helps the sport. Either way, he can use it to promote the game. But he's clueless.

It's a shame Paul Giamatti's dad died so young. :(

[LynneSin]

22. Don't get me started on Bart Giamatti!

Although his kid did turn out to be pretty good actor I am no fan of his either.

I think the Pete Rose situation was handled horribly and I'm still pissed the greatest hitter in baseball EVER is not in the Hall of Fame. Yes, I realize that Rose gambled on baseball but he never did it as a player but as a manager. When the lifetime bans were handed out back in 1919 let's face it - there really wasn't a whole lot of bad things you could do with baseball other than gamble on it. And yet today, with all the corruption that can be found in baseball, gambling was still treated like the worst thing ever that could give you a lifetime ban.

Personally I think steroids has had a greater impact on the game of baseball than anything Pete Rose ever did to fix a game. Players that played the game without the use of steroids didn't stand a chance against those who abused them and broke records like Hank Aaron's homerun record (and for the record - today I still think Hank Aaron is the all-time home run champ because Hank did it with his own talent and not with any steroid enhancements).

You want to ban Rose from ever managing a team again fine, but let the guy in the Hall of Fame. He earned it with all those hits that he got without use of steroids!


Here's the lowdown on what happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Scandals#1980s_Pete_Rose_betting_scandal

Rose, facing a very harsh punishment, along with his attorney and agent, Reuven Katz, decided to seek a compromise with Major League Baseball. On August 24, 1989, Rose agreed to a voluntary lifetime ban from baseball. The agreement had three key provisions:

1.Major League Baseball would make no finding of fact regarding gambling allegations and cease their investigation;
2.Pete Rose was neither admitting or denying the charges; and
3.Pete Rose could apply for reinstatement after one year.
To Rose's chagrin, however, Giamatti immediately stated publicly that he felt that Pete Rose bet on baseball games. Then, in a stunning follow-up event, Giamatti, a heavy smoker for many years, suffered a fatal heart attack just eight days later, on September 1.

The consensus among baseball experts is that the death of Giamatti and the ascension of Fay Vincent, a great admirer of Giamatti, was the worst thing that could happen to Pete Rose's hopes of reinstatement.

[jobycom]

23. Oh, I disagree passionately there.

A player on steroids is at least still trying to win. It's still a game whose outcome is undecided. A gambler fixing a game means there is no sport. It's just a play with a pre-determined outcome, like elections in Florida.

Rose knew the rule. It wasn't some obscure rule, it was the most sacred lore of the game, posted prominently in every clubhouse. It was the last thing you say before taking the field, and the first thing you saw when you came back.

Rose does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. His numbers and records are, but he as a person should never, ever be allowed in without a ticket, and frankly I'd consider not allowing him in then, either.

That's the difference between Giamatti and Selig. Giamatti could make tough, even unpopular decisions for the good of the game alone, whereas Selig can't make any decision, and just allows the game to collapse around him.

If they want to keep everyone on steroids out of the Hall, make that decision, post it in the clubhouses, and stick to it. But someone else's sins don't exonerate Rose's.

[LynneSin]

24. I'd almost agree with what you said but I can't.

Rose claims that he always bet for the Reds to win and well they ended up in 2nd place like they did last year (behind the Dodgers).

I see no difference between someone altering the game by gambling vs. someone who is using steroids. Clearly the use of steroids would only increase the chance that said player would be able to hit harder and longer thus creating more homeruns, especially in the case of people like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds - all suspected roidheads. Their use altared how they played, helped them break records, win awards and boost their teams. Tell me how that differs from a gambler.

If steriods existed back in 1919 and were abused like they are today - perhaps a lifetime ban would have also been created for the use of Roids. Baseball in the 1919 was a different world than it is today. A lifetime ban for gambling fit was was consider 'the worst thing you could do to baseball' back in 1919. But the worst thing you could do to baseball today is not gambling.

But here's the thing. They will never EVER change the rules. First, the powers-to-be in baseball actually liked it when all those homerun records were being shattered by Steroid Abusers because it sold tickets. Anything that would help earn the owners an almighty dollar, regardless of who was doing what, will always be subtly overlooked especially since it's a former owner (Bud Selig from Milwaukee) that runs the league. Pete Rose gambling never ever benefitted the owners or sold tickets. Personally the Reds of that era (and remember I was a Reds fan) was a good team but they weren't playoff quality. The choices that Rose made never sold extra tickets nor benefitted the owners. So it was alot easier to shit on him than the roidheads.

And seriously, Giametti made a deal with Pete Rose (read the exerpt from Wiki) and then he turned around and stabbed Rose in the back. Rose volunteerly left the sport and agreed to a 1-year ban provided that he neither denied or agreed that he bet on sports. Giametti made a deal and a day later he went against that deal. And because Giametti died 8 days later, Rose no longer could go after Giametti and the slimy thing he did and was stuck with Fay Vincent, who was a Giametti clone.

[jobycom]

25. There's a world of difference between steroids and gambling.

Steroids are just another type of cheating, like scuffing the ball or corking the bat. It's always been part of the game. How do we know Ruth wasn't cheating somehow--corked bat, stolen signs, who knows? Hell, even Pete Rose admitted using barbs when he played, so he did use player-enhancing drugs. Cheating was around in 1919, and before, and ever since, and there were no lifetime bans for it.

Gambling isn't cheating. Gambling is fixing the game. It turns baseball into pro-wrestling, where no one believes what they are watching. Baseball cannot exist with gambling. The Black Sox threw the World Series because of gambling. If you think Barry Bonds is on steroids, you still can watch the game. You might be angry, but there's still a game going on, and you still don't know how the game is going to turn out. When gambling gets into a sport, it's no longer a sport. Would you watch baseball if you knew the World Series was pre-determined, that your team had already won or lost, not based on how they play or the luck of the game, but on decisions made in alleys and behind pool halls? That the whole game, the whole season, was just a performance to make some gambler richer?

This isn't an issue from 1919, and every sport has absolute, iron-clad rules on gambling. We saw the NBA take a big hit because of a referee recently, we see points shaving issues in college every couple of years. The official in the NBA threatened to bring the whole sport down, because suddenly all the angry fans who were saying "The refs took the game away" had evidence to back their complaints, and the whole sport looked questionable.

Steroids bring a lot of personal records into question, just as sandpaper taped to a pitcher's glove does, but it doesn't call the whole sport into question. Cheating has always happened, and will always happen. Tom House, a pitching coach and a pitcher during the 70s, has testified that many players were doing steroids in the 70s, and that at every era of the game players have been doing everything they could to gain an edge, even if it was considered cheating. And that's the difference--they are trying to get an edge to win, or outperform, the other person. There's still a sport going on. With gambling, you never know if the player or team you are watching is trying to win or trying to lose.

People will watch a steroid-bulked player in the World Series or the Super Bowl, but if they think the World Series or Super Bowl is already decided, they won't watch it. And that's why gambling is a lifetime ban, and should be, and why Pete Rose should never be in the Hall of Fame.

As for Giamatti doing anything questionable, there's no evidence of that, and only Pete Rose's contradictory claims to even suggest it. Rose accepted a lifetime ban, and according the rules was allowed to apply for reinstatement every year. Reinstatement was never promised him, he's just such a half-wit he thought they would make an exception for him. This guy has lied about gambling and whether he bet on Reds games, and probably even whether he bet against the Reds. He bet on a third of the games he managed in 1987, and he's been caught in so many lies--and honestly just seems so deluded at times one thinks he might believe some of his lies--that I have no belief, none at all, that he didn't bet against his team. He's shown how much of a sleeze he is, he bet on his own team, much evidence suggests he bet against his team, and he's never once shown any type of integrity to suggest he wouldn't rig a game to get out of gambling troubles--or just to win a few bucks, even.

Giamatti did the right thing. The evidence was overwhelming, and Rose's constant protests were all proven false. Giamatti didn't do anything sleezy, Rose just used his death to try to find a new way to cheat the system. He gambled on games he managed, he bet on his team to lose, he played on barbituates (by his own admission), and he was caught in so many lies he makes Bush look almost honest. The Hall of Fame doesn't need his stench. (Oh yeah, and I met him once, and he was a real asshole).

You don't want Selig to give a young pitcher who threw a perfect game the perfect game that everyone agrees he pitched even though he did absolutely nothing wrong and was not at fault in any way for that game being taken away from him, because it would alter the rules, but you want Rose to be admitted to the Hall of Fame even though he willfully and repeatedly broke the one sacred rule of the game repeatedly while constantly lying to investigators about it? Rose knew the consequences every time he placed a bet, he just thought he was so much smarter and better than the world that the world wouldn't dare hold him to those standards. He has slandered a dead man to try to gain some edge to escape the consequences of his actions. And you want the rules to be ignored for him, but not for the innocent pitcher who did everything right? I don't get that. Rose is the George W Bush of baseball. If they EVER let him into the Hall, even after his death, I'll never watch a game again.

[LynneSin]

27. Honestly I still see no difference

you have someone using steroids day in and day out it will change the game. The only difference between what the Roid heads did and what Rose did is this - The Roid heads sold tickets and the owners made money off of them. And therefore they will always be protected in the end and that makes the game 10000000000 times worse than anything that Pete Rose ever did.

Look, what you are failing to do here is read the agreement that was made between Rose and Bart Giametti. Image you're a in court and you decide to cop a plea. You go forth to the judge ask if you can plead to a lesser charge and the judge agrees to those charges and a sentence. Then imagine 2 days later the judge decides to throw you in jail for life. That's what Giametti did to Rose. This isn't about what Rose admitted to back around 2003-5. This is about what happened the day that Pete Rose and Bart Giametti came to terms on the punishment that Rose was to get for what he had done. You can look it up - I included the Wiki link in an above link. Rose plea bargained his case to Giametti and Giametti agreed to the terms. Then Giametti changed those terms. And once Giametti changed those terms Rose had little chance to fight his case. This isn't so much whether Rose was guilty or innocent but instead Rose being tricked into the ban. For that Giametti will always be a shit to me. Unfortunately Giametti died 8 days later so Rose was pretty much doomed.

[Zavulon]

28. +1 about Rose getting into the Hall.

The day he gets in is the day I get out.

[Zavulon]

29. Regardless of what Giamatti did,

Pete Rose lied about what he did for 15 years, and when did he come out with the truth? On a Hall of Fame induction weekend as he was hawking his book, overshadowing the Cooperstown entries of Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor. I have nothing but contempt for that jerk.

I can't speak for you or anyone else, but the day Rose enters the Hall is the day I give up on the sport.

[LynneSin]

30. Perhaps if Giametti didn't give Rose a shit deal this mess would have been cleared up ages ago

I'm not talking about what Rose has done today, but what happened to him ages go. Rose gave up his rights to plea his case to accept a deal that Giametti then turned around and reneged on it a day later. There were doubts in the Dowd report (the evidence the league had against Rose) and Rose may have been able stay in baseball. And I think Giametti knew the Dowd report was flawed and try to give Rose a sweet deal just so he could then get his way with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose

According to the Dowd Report itself, "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Reds."<2> This is in contrast to the case of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and his teammates in the Black Sox Scandal, who were accused of intentionally losing the 1919 World Series. Those critical of Rose's behavior, including Ohio's own Hall of Fame baseball reporter Hal McCoy, have observed that "the major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game."<8>

____________________________________

Rose had a shot of getting out of this with his named cleared. Remember it was never that Rose bet on baseball - sports figures have bet heavily on sports including their own for ages. It was whether Rose bet on his own team. Giametti knew that the Dowd report wasn't 100% solid to prove Rose's guilt - that would only finally come if Rose admitted himself. Giametti made the deal to trick Rose out of baseball, it was the only shot he had at saving face. And then Giametti royally screwed him over. He knew he the Dowd report wouldn't seal the deal so he did what it would take to make it happen even if he had to lie and cheat.

I understand some of the anger against Rose and by no means is the guy some sort of Saint. But you have to separate what rose confessed to a few years back from what happened in the 80's. Rose wanted all of this behind him and took the deal thinking he would be back in baseball in a year. So honestly, I can't blame the guy for hawking his goods during Hall of Fame week - Baseball screwed him over big time.

And btw Rose is a bit of a shit in RL - I would agree with you on that one but I'm separating the man from the player. The player is a legend and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. nuff said.

[Initech]

26. People are missing the absolute worst part about this:

Here is a fuck-up of gargantuan proportions, and as an Angels fan, I know a thing or two about umpire fuck-ups (see: 2005 ALCS). But the worst part about this is that they're letting all those steroid-abusing fucks like Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez keep their records, yet something like this that's legitimate doesn't get remedied. That's what fucking sucks.