Armando Galarraga pitched a perfect game last night, the third perfect game this season. It was a close game, some great defense by the Tigers to keep the night alive, highlighted by Austin Jackson's brilliant running catch in the ninth and a difficult 3-1 put-out at first to end the game. Except, of course, that isn't what happened. First base umpire Jim Joyce (man, we're really getting good at knowing the names of umpires and referees aren't we?) looked to move into a punch-out motion before changing his mind and calling the runner safe. Replays clearly showed the runner was out and after the game, which ended after one more batter, Joyce would say that he was wrong and felt terrible for taking away Galarraga's career highlight.
First, obviously, a moment for Jim Joyce for man-ing up and admitting his mistake, not in a press release, not hiding behind Major League Baseball's official statements, not making excuses like it was a close play, coulda gone either way, I stand by my call, etc. Nope. He apologized, healed the situation, and certainly eased the increasingly volatile relationship that seems to have developed between managers/players and umpires. This last week had Joe Maddon and Kevin Gregg ejected in the same Jays-Rays game two nights ago, Joe West (and his publicist) continuing to make an ass of himself, Ozzie Guillen flaming West after a game, and that other really heated argument from a few nights ago. So it's been a tough go for the umpires lately, much of it their own doing, and it was nice to see what would've been the uber-climax of recent umpire-embattlement handled with some humility and class.
This is baseball though, and so any type of umpire mistakes become fodder for those who want to see increasing use of instant replay. A few years ago, umpires forgot what a homerun looked like and MLB had to institute an instant replay to determine if a potential homerun was foul, off the wall, or legitimate. Of course after last night, there's a new call for instant replay use on the bases to avoid this kind of situation. The traditionalists, who are comprised of Old Columnists, Old Former Players Who Are Now Announcers, Anybody Directly Employed By MLB and People On TV. That's almost everyone, isn't it? Oh, except for fans. The argument against more instant replay use is that it'll make the game longer than it already is. That's valid. You can counter that by saying that ANY FAN IN THE GODDAMN WORLD will wait an extra few minutes in a three-hour game to get the call RIGHT. And that's the problem here, there's too much emphasis on the broad and vague idea of "maintaining tradition" and not enough on "getting the fucking call right."
I hate listening to this debate in baseball, especially when an incident like this raises the intensity and importance of the debate. I tip my hand I suppose with my own leanings on the matter, but maybe unfairly. I'm not sure how exactly instant replay will be used, if I want more instant replay, if I want the game to take even longer, if it should be a coach's challenge, which plays should be reviewable. What I know for sure is that the traditionalists' argument is infuriatingly stupid. "The games will take too long?" Bullshit. This sport has done NOTHING to speed itself up, priding itself on allowing players to call time between pitches, endless catcher visits to the mound, batters stepping out of the box and performing a full-body epileptic fit on their batting gloves, and on and on. Joe West was right on this one, even if he should keep his mouth shut. Time has never been a priority for baseball, so why pretend to make it one when changes are being proposed to get more calls right? The other main argument is that it's important to keep something called the "human element" in the game. Why? Because fans like the memory of Doug Eddings and AJ Pierzynski, Don Denkinger at first base, or Phil Cuzzi missing a Joe Mauer double by five feet (from probably 20 feet away, what a shithead)? These aren't quaint parts of a grand sport's legacy. These are embarrassing mistakes that the system was not yet advanced enough to avoid. MLB has the means to advance the game and will eventually implement them; every other sport has a replay and/or challenge system, it's inevitable baseball will too.
What would be great is if baseball was willing to retroactively change the ruling on the field from last night's game. Does it create a dangerous precedent? Maybe, though in this case I think everyone involved can agree that the player and the team getting credit for the perfect game is the most important thing. Would other teams attempt to have calls that went against them reversed? Absolutely! Every chance they got! But couldn't baseball simply make the ruling, then say that because of the extreme and rare circumstances (it would've been the last out!) this event will not be considered precedent for future retroactive corrections. The league will announce that it will take another look at instant replay feasibility in light of recent events, and the game would evolve without any suffering. I'm not a lawyer, this might not be a perfect strategy and there may be issues in the future, but how could they be worse than last night?
Update: *SIGH*
First, obviously, a moment for Jim Joyce for man-ing up and admitting his mistake, not in a press release, not hiding behind Major League Baseball's official statements, not making excuses like it was a close play, coulda gone either way, I stand by my call, etc. Nope. He apologized, healed the situation, and certainly eased the increasingly volatile relationship that seems to have developed between managers/players and umpires. This last week had Joe Maddon and Kevin Gregg ejected in the same Jays-Rays game two nights ago, Joe West (and his publicist) continuing to make an ass of himself, Ozzie Guillen flaming West after a game, and that other really heated argument from a few nights ago. So it's been a tough go for the umpires lately, much of it their own doing, and it was nice to see what would've been the uber-climax of recent umpire-embattlement handled with some humility and class.
This is baseball though, and so any type of umpire mistakes become fodder for those who want to see increasing use of instant replay. A few years ago, umpires forgot what a homerun looked like and MLB had to institute an instant replay to determine if a potential homerun was foul, off the wall, or legitimate. Of course after last night, there's a new call for instant replay use on the bases to avoid this kind of situation. The traditionalists, who are comprised of Old Columnists, Old Former Players Who Are Now Announcers, Anybody Directly Employed By MLB and People On TV. That's almost everyone, isn't it? Oh, except for fans. The argument against more instant replay use is that it'll make the game longer than it already is. That's valid. You can counter that by saying that ANY FAN IN THE GODDAMN WORLD will wait an extra few minutes in a three-hour game to get the call RIGHT. And that's the problem here, there's too much emphasis on the broad and vague idea of "maintaining tradition" and not enough on "getting the fucking call right."
I hate listening to this debate in baseball, especially when an incident like this raises the intensity and importance of the debate. I tip my hand I suppose with my own leanings on the matter, but maybe unfairly. I'm not sure how exactly instant replay will be used, if I want more instant replay, if I want the game to take even longer, if it should be a coach's challenge, which plays should be reviewable. What I know for sure is that the traditionalists' argument is infuriatingly stupid. "The games will take too long?" Bullshit. This sport has done NOTHING to speed itself up, priding itself on allowing players to call time between pitches, endless catcher visits to the mound, batters stepping out of the box and performing a full-body epileptic fit on their batting gloves, and on and on. Joe West was right on this one, even if he should keep his mouth shut. Time has never been a priority for baseball, so why pretend to make it one when changes are being proposed to get more calls right? The other main argument is that it's important to keep something called the "human element" in the game. Why? Because fans like the memory of Doug Eddings and AJ Pierzynski, Don Denkinger at first base, or Phil Cuzzi missing a Joe Mauer double by five feet (from probably 20 feet away, what a shithead)? These aren't quaint parts of a grand sport's legacy. These are embarrassing mistakes that the system was not yet advanced enough to avoid. MLB has the means to advance the game and will eventually implement them; every other sport has a replay and/or challenge system, it's inevitable baseball will too.
What would be great is if baseball was willing to retroactively change the ruling on the field from last night's game. Does it create a dangerous precedent? Maybe, though in this case I think everyone involved can agree that the player and the team getting credit for the perfect game is the most important thing. Would other teams attempt to have calls that went against them reversed? Absolutely! Every chance they got! But couldn't baseball simply make the ruling, then say that because of the extreme and rare circumstances (it would've been the last out!) this event will not be considered precedent for future retroactive corrections. The league will announce that it will take another look at instant replay feasibility in light of recent events, and the game would evolve without any suffering. I'm not a lawyer, this might not be a perfect strategy and there may be issues in the future, but how could they be worse than last night?
Update: *SIGH*
No comments:
Post a Comment