Announcement from mbcrowder
 

I’d like to announce publicly that I will not be changing the tax rate for the country this year, and I will not change the NFL instant replay rule for 2010. Thank you.

What?

You say I don’t have the right or ability to change those things anyway? True, but that didn’t stop Bud Selig from announcing that he was not going to change Jim Joyce’s call at first base the other day, and make Galarraga’s game a Perfect Game. I have just as much right to change the country’s tax rate as Selig does to change an umpire’s call.

That's extra funny, coming from a guy from Texas.

While I understand your point.....I think
 

Bud Selig is in a position to do so.

Using your example, Mr Obama and Mr Tagiabue are also in a position to do so.

You are not.


Of course, this is just for argument's sake. ;)

...and Mr Obama IS working to change the tax rate. Mr Selig and Mr Tagliabu are NOT working to make their suggested changes....

JJ

(just for argument's sake) :D

Gotta be for argument's sake - because the President cannot unilaterally change the tax rate and only the NFL Competition Committee and/or owners can change the rules. :D

Understand and agree. I never said "unilaterally" as I know neither can do it by themselves. But, they certainly are better positioned to do something about those issues that our OP.

I don’t think “best interests” is nearly as broad as you imply here. In the Cubs case, a judge ruled that the clause was “applicable only to internal baseball relationships between teams or between teams and players.” Even the current Texas Rangers situation is shaky regarding this clause – and if he invokes it, it will definitely go to court.

“Best interests” does not even apply (yet) to interactions between the league and umpires, Sandy Alderson notwithstanding.

Selig himself wrote, “the Best interests powers are inherently narrow and created to ensure the integrity of the game.”

Put it this way … Bud could not invoke Best Interests to enforce instant replay to allow for changes to umpires calls. He had to use collective bargaining to change the agreement between MLB and WUA. So how could Best Interests apply to this … which is essentially the same thing – using instant replay to change a call (however long after the fact)… the agreement is VERY specific about what calls can be reversed via replay, and one umpire nearly lost his job over going outside the bounds of that agreement.

If Selig had decided to overturn the call, I'm sure that the justification would have turned on claims about fairness and getting it right.

He wouldn't have to go through the players' union or WUA because it would have been an exceptional instance and he wasn't proposing any change of policy or rule.

As for whether he has the "power" to overturn an umpire's call: that's moot. The powers of the commissioner are ill-defined and broad. I suspect that had he decided to overturn the call most umpires and many others who love the game would have regarded it as an illegitimate extension of the commissioner's power.

I'm not sure what you mean here...

In the interests of fairness, they should go back and look at Larsen's perfect game to determine (a) whether that last pitch was really in the zone and, (b) if it wasn't, whether Dale Mitchell offered.

And while they are at it, let's fix the 1985 World Series too. Or last night's Seattle game for that matter.

How about we all move on, now! What's more important is will this push MLB to implement video replay and make baseball games even longer now?

Honestly, even though I'm an umpire... I have no problem with them implementing instant replay on some sort of limited "challenge" basis - if each team can only challenge 1 time, for example, then we've only added 3-4 minutes to the game.

One change I'd like to see is finding a way to either let the umpires have much quicker access to the replays (so they don't disappear down a tunnel for 5 minutes), or simply use college football's system and put real (or perhaps EX-) umpires in a booth for this sort of thing. MOST of the time we've seen the replay we need within 30 seconds - that would speed it up a lot.

I think he means that all Californians are dandies that ride sidesaddle.

And while they are at it, let's fix the 1985 World Series too.

And a bunch of others. Before the replay, suspect calls were not verified as missed until the film was developed. For example, in the first inning of the fourth game of the 1960 World Series, Yogi Berra beat a play at 1B but was called out for the third out, which cost the Yankees a run. They lost the game 3-2. When the photographs revealed the blown call the next day, the general attitude of fans and even the Yankees was simply, "It's part of the game."

I don't believe there's a photograph to prove it one way or another, but I suspect that a call (on Joe Pepitone at 1B) in the ninth inning of the fifth game in 1964 cost the Yankees the game (and thus the series).

I can't remember which series it was—probably early 1950s—but a runner beats a force play at 3B by what looks like almost a full second, while the narrator says, ". . . and he's . . . out on a close play at 3B!" Meanwhile, you see the 3B coach blow a gasket and set a high jump record.

In 1969, I came in to relieve in the bottom of the 10th of the NBC state championship game. Runners were on 1B and 2B with none out. Their pitcher tried three times to bunt the runners over but struck out. The next guy hit a ball back to me on one hop. I threw to 3B for the second out, and the throw to 1B got the runner by three steps. Had the BU made no call at all, the teams would have changed sides without pausing. However, he called, "Safe!" and everybody on the field froze. There wasn't a lot of screaming, because we were all just plain stunned and wanted to know why "safe." The BU said he couldn't see the play because the sun was in his eyes. (I cannot explain why the PU didn't get involved at that point. I just don't remember.)

Yes, the next guy got a hit and sent us home. Oddly, through the years we have all remembered that call humorously rather than angrily.