The Phillies played this game under protest per Rule 4.19, claiming that umpires may not use instant replay to determine and adjudge spectator interference. On 9/7/11, the Phillies' formal protest was denied by Major League Baseball Executive Vice President for Baseball Operations Joe Torre. [Related Discussion Regarding What may be Reviewed via Instant Replay, May 24: Discussions: Video Interference]
MLB Press Release, 08/26/08: Instant replay will apply only to home run calls -- whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed.
2.00 INTERFERENCE (d): Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and (1) touches a live ball or (2) touches a player and hinders an attempt to make a play on a live ball.
3.16: When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.This is Joe West (22)'s seventh ejection of 2011.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
Joe West now has 13 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (9 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 13)
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by kickersrule, who is now in 1st place in the UEFL with 37 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by sachmet, who is now in 4th place in the UEFL with 28 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by mtn335, who is in 5th place in the UEFL with 26 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by BONZ_kansascity, who is now tied for 6th place in the UEFL with 25 pts.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by RichMSN, who is now in 9th place in the UEFL with 21 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by DanNJ316, who is now tied for 12th place in the UEFL with 19 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by whenindoubt55, who is now tied for 16th place in the UEFL with 16 pts.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by Scumpire, who is now tied for 16th place in the UEFL with 16 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by thexfactor264, who is now tied for 20th place in the UEFL with 13 points.
Joe West is owned as a Primary Umpire by jhagen88, who is now tied for 20th place in the UEFL with 13 points.
Joe West is owned as a Secondary Umpire by BGMTOM, who is now tied for 10th place in the UEFL with 20 points.
*Joe West is credited as the calling umpire under UEFL Rule 6.b.iii.a.2.
This is the 180th ejection of 2011.
This is the 88th Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Charlie Manuel's third ejection of 2011.
This is the second instant replay reviewed and overturned ejection of 2011.
Chad Fairchild was also the HP Umpire during another 2011 contest with a disputed replay call.
This is the 24th ejection by Joe West's crew (West (7), Fairchild (5), Paul Schrieber (1); Angel Campos (5), Angel Hernandez (4), Sam Holbrook (2) while working with West's crew).
Wrap: Phillies at Marlins, 9/4/11
Video (Play/Ejection): Umpires use replay to review and reverse call; Manuel tossed arguing the replay decision
Video (Interview with Spectators who Interfered): Offending fans are ejected, don't understand rule
Related Discussion: Discussions: Video Interference
58 comments :
West is one of my umpires and this was clearly interference, but since nobody disputed whether this ball was a home run or not is this a proper use of replay?
I don't think so. I'm also a Phillies fan, so I'd rather see the Phils win than see the league rule on the protest.
So if the protest is upheld does that change the ruling?
Here's what gets me. The rule about protests is that a protest can be made "when a manager claims that an umpire’s decision is in violation of these [OBR] rules." The rule about using instant replay has never actually been codified - it's not in the rules. How can Joe's usage of instant replay be in violation of the rules if it's not even in the rules? This is going to be another Tim McClelland/George Brett pine tar game type of rule. MLB has gotten sloppy and neglected to formally address instant replay in the rules book. They're going to have to rewrite the rules and add a section under Rule 4 or Rule 9 about instant replay.
BTW: Only umpires may initiate instant replay review. Managers can request, sure, but only the umpire can actually decide to use it. They don't need to even be asked by a manager to use it. All Joe West, Chad Fairchild, Sam Holbrook, and Paul Schrieber have to say is that one of them thought the ball might have left the yard. Besides, seeing as "was subject to fan interference" is one of the provisions under which replay may be used, I don't think that they were out of line by initiating the use of instant replay.
The only thing that hasn't clearly been defined (by clearly I mean word by word) is whether they can use instant replay to not only rule fan interference, but rule an out as a result of said interference. Up to now, instant replay fan interference calls have more or less resulted in a two base award (the false ground rule double). I don't recall anyone being declared out as a result of interference captured on replay.
By rule, it's a boundary call because the spectators are reaching over the boundary to interfere with the live ball, preventing the play from occurring the way it would have without the spectator/fan interference.
It's an authorized use of replay, it is proper and legal. Umpires are allowed to go to replay in Major League Baseball to rule on any fair ball "boundary call." Spectator interference on a live fly ball is, by rule, a boundary call, since the aforementioned boundary separates the playing field from the spectator area. Since the spectators appear to reach over the wall (through the boundary), you have a boundary call and an authorized use of instant replay review.
I don't think the outfield catches that ball without interference. Even if the rules say that if there's interference with the opportunity to make a catch, it's an out, you've still got to use common sense. It's not going to be caught most of the time, and therefore, it has to be a double. Joe West ejecting Charlie Manuel isn't exactly new. Charlie Manuel getting ejected sticking up for his team getting burned by a bad call isn't exactly new either.
I've said it before, Joe West, Bob Davidson, and company have to be doing something big behind the scenes to keep their jobs. How does Joe West call this an out? I understand the replay, I'm not upset about going to the monitor to review, calling the office in new york or whatever they do. But what I don't get is how you can rule this an out. It's clearly interference, sure, but you can't just assume the out. Again, no matter what the rule says about interference with the fielder attempting to play a fair ball or whatever, it's going to have to be a great play to be catch, and I don't think you can assume that.
Yet another bad call by yet another bad umpire. Sorry, there's not one good umpire in the league. You can't penalize the Phillies for what the fans at another team's stadium does. The Marlins are the home team, it's their fans to monitor. If they can't control their field, it should go against them. You can't just punish Hunter Pence because the Marlins can't keep fans on their side of the wall. That's their bad and it's an even worse call to destroy the visiting team's chance to win because the home team can't do things right.
@Janet
Do you know what spectator interference is? Because it sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about.
This is a gutsy call and it's 100% the correct call. Fans clearly reach over and touch the ball AND touch the outfielder's glove. I was listening to Sarge matthews on the phillies broadcast feed, he starts out saying that you have to give a double, it's not interference, etc. etc. Of course, after they show the replay a few times from a few different angles and it's obvious what happened, he admits it might be interference. But I like the other Phillies guy - the play-by-play guy - because he admits he doesn't know exactly what the rule is and says that Joe West will come out and let them know what the rule is by his call. The truck/booth then puts up some graphics with various MLB Rules on it, such as the spectator interference rule and the replay rule. That part was nice to see. Could do without sarge screwing it all up with his nonsense.
But a good call. It was clearly interference, and the out was the correct call. What's more, they were Phillies fans, so it was even more fitting that they got penalized. Last thing we need is another Jeffrey Maer/Mayer incident with a Garcia being too chicken to do anything about it. Give credit to Joe and company for the conference, the review, and the communication.
@Janet, two things... #1: You do realize spectator interference is a universal rule in all stadiums, right? As in, if it happens in Philly, the same rule applies. As an aside, MLB does keep track of spectator interference and field intrusion (field runner/jumper/streaker) numbers and penalizes teams for each intrusion, unsporting delay, etc.
#2: Even so, you realize that those were Phillies fans that interfered, right? As in, to play devil's advocate by the token of your logic, why punish the Marlins for the actions of Phillies fans?
This was absolutely fan interference. Umpires are allowed to use instant replay to rule on fan interference, so this was the correct application of the rule.
What a messed up game. Marlins have left 20 runners on base. Game started with no bases on the field (that's right, there was no physical white rubber/plastic base to be found at first second nor third), you've got this interference issue (and frankly, a good call, even easier using instant replay), and they're in the 14th inning.
Personally, with all these ballparks allowing fans to sit right up against the fence, you've just got to allow instant replay to be used on any call with a fence.
here is the video.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=18818993
I really think this site is misreading the intention of the "boundary calls" piece of the replay rules. This ball was never a home run, wasn't called a home run, wasn't close to being a home run. I really think (as per the press releases from MLB in 2008) that only home run balls and potential home run balls were supposed to be covered by IR. The Maier ball? Absolutely -- it was ruled a home run on the field.
For the defensive manager to come out and argue that a double, ruled a double, should be called an out -- that's not the intent of this rule.
If that's the intent, they could ask for a review of foul balls down the line when spectators are involved. I don't think anyone thinks that's the intent of the IR rules as written.
Wonder if MLB will publicly deny the Phillies protest or just quietly do so, though. I have no doubt that MLB will figure out how to rule in such a way that the protest will be denied regardless of the original intention of the guidelines.
@Anonymous 3:15, there's a reason when MLB launched replay on August 28 in 2008, the phrase "boundary call" became commonplace. In 2009, Gary Matthews Jr. was the victim of fan interference, McClelland was the crew chief and ruled fan interference, giving Matthews a two base reward. It was in deep right field in Anaheim, so the question of whether it was catchable was not a concern. Anaheim is one of those stadiums where in deep RF, the fans sit two stories above the playing field. There have been many times where a 2B, 3B, or 1B has been confirmed in fan interference cases like the Angels one.
What hasn't happened yet is spectator interference being called after a live ball, and the batter being declared out as a result. It's very much like the Pine Tar game with the Royals and Yankees in that MLB hasn't yet incorporated replay into their OBR rule book, and as a result, they have to make an interpretation decision when had they clearly laid out the rules, it would have been much easier to call this one.
Just as Gil says in the UEFL write-up, umpires are allowed to go to replay when they have a question about a HR-involved boundary call (@ Anonymous 3:15, I think this site reads the MLB mandate PERFECTLY... no where does it say anything about a boundary issue where a possible HR is not involved).
As Gil says, the Phillies protested and claimed that Joe West decided to go to replay for something not authorized or covered by the mandate. Specifically, they say he went for fan interference with out the possibility of a home run. I think this is a fantastic write-up, because it is straightforward in the facts. The top part about the MLB mandate clearly says "home run" several times, and the bottom part about the Phillies protest tactfully leaves out the phrase "home run." That's the issue.
And as Anonymous 1:18 says, all that the umpires need to say is that one of them thought the ball might have left the yard. Then the replay becomes okay because they're reviewing whether it was a home run or not, and spectator interference is one of the issues they are allowed to review, given that they went to replay because they had a question of HR/Not HR. Who knows what was said on the field, but if Joe said anything about checking a HR, the umps are covered. If he said he was not checking a HR, the Phillies will win the protest. It all depends if the umpires went to replay because one of them thought it could be a HR.
So what actually happened here is that a team protested the fact that the umps tried to get the call right. Think about that for a second. Phillies; shame on you..
Well, this is what lawyers do all the time. You appeal (protest in MLB) based on some small technicality, even if it's obvious that your client is guilty (or that it was interference). Nothing new. It's called passing the buck and blaming someone else.
As an aside, we've discussed "when may an umpire use instant replay" before. On May 24, during the Braves-Pirates game, the umpires used instant replay to verify a spectator interference call. As I previously discussed then, "instant replay review may only be used on [potential] home run calls." Click here for that discussion.
Janet...
"Not one good umpire in the league". Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Please, no more posts; when you get this distressed, just give your stuffed Phillies Phantic doll a big squeezy hug, and I assure you, it will be OK.
The following is a quote from Joe West:
“We went to look at the replay because there was the possibility it could have been a home run.”
“Chad already had spectator interference, so now we got a decision whether the spectator interference happened over the fence or below the fence. Charlie wants a home run, I got to go look at it. I’m dead in the water. Couldn’t win either way. They were both complaining. Rather than getting in an argument with both of them, I talked to the crew and then we went and looked at it.”
Joe just covered his crew, he just made sure the protest will be denied. He said the by-the-book reason he needed to as to why they went to review the play. That one sentence about looking at the replay because of the possibility of a home run is all that needs to be said. Joe is a smart guy, make no mistake about it. He knows his stuff.
Just watched the video with the ejected fans who interfered with the ball. Are they just making it up about talking with Hunter Pence, because it sounds like Pence doesn't know the rule either. There should really be a rules quiz just like you have a driving quiz before you get your license, you should have a rules quiz before you play professional baseball.
Wait... since when are there spectators at Sun Life Stadium?
I believe in the integrity of umpires. I'm one myself. But I don't believe Joe. I knew this is exactly what he'd say, but I don't believe him for a second.
The guys were adamant that the ball hit the top of the fence at the beginning of the video. B.S.. Hit their stupid hands.
I like how the Phillies fans are rooting against getting the call right. They're calling the Marlins cheaters, they're calling West a bad umpire... for getting the call right. WHO CARES if West saying his quote about the home run possibility is true or not... he got the damn call right.
What is the umpire's primary role? To get the call right. That's what West & crew did today. Hats off.
I understand they probably got the play right, but you still have to follow protocol in replay situations. That's it.
@5:20pm-
If you don't believe Joe, please site your evidence. Have you found Joe to be a proven liar? Or is this just your "feelings"? You don't know what Joe was thinking. You also cannot prove what you are saying. It's a slippery slope your on, no evidence, no history to site, and claiming because your an umpire you "know" what is going on. Either you believe in the integrity of the umpire or you don't, you cannot have it both ways.
Jim McKean just said on ESPN that fan interference was review-able, and the call was correct.
"protocol" ??????? What does that mean? In umpiring you don't have to "show your work". In math class, you have to show your work.
Great job by Joe and the crew. The ball is clearly close to the top of the fence, when the spectator interference happens. This is the exact reason why there is instant replay in baseball, to allow the umpires to get the call right. As for this not being in the rule book.....you do realize they have an interpretation manuel that specifically covers instant replay and many other rulings.
I recall reading, probably on this website even, that if the issue is a possible HR, no matter how minute that possibility, if the umpire wants to look at it, he can do it. As long as the crew chief thinks replay can help out with a possible HR call, he can look, and in doing so, if he sees fan interference, then he can call it fan interference, award bases, and potentially award an out.
Tough call. Good call, but rough and tough call.
What happens if McKeon requests a replay on the home-run or not, just to get to the interference call. Does the rule say the defensive manager in this case cannot request the replay of a home run knowing that the umpires will now see the interference? Would this be a case where the umpires would deny McKean's request because he is trying to circumvent the rule by talking home run, no home run to get to what he really wants with the interference?
They also have to rule whether the fan interference caused the ball to be missed by the fielder. For those who say how do you know, well how do you know every single time when the pitcher's are throwing at the batter and then saying later the ball slipped or they were not throwing at the batter. Its all judgment.
And for all the Joe haters who read where 47% said he was the worst, there were only 5 umpires who were rated the best and Joe got 5% of the vote as the 5th best umpire in the league.
Wow, Janet...Wow.
More idiot announcers...
"I gotta tell ya, that's pretty close to really being almost interference."
That is EXACTLY interference.
@Anon 9:13pm:
Did they do a new poll rating the umpires for 2011? Cause on the last poll I remember seeing, the one for 2010 from ESPN Magazine, Joe West had 35% rate him as the worst. CB Bucknor was voted the worst at 37%.
@Anonymous 9:13, the rule says nothing about who requests it. Only the umpire can decide to use it. And he doesn't need to be asked. It's like in college football. Either side can challenge the call, but the booth can always buzz the ref. In essence, the officiating crew can decide to use instant replay.
...methinks this might be Janet from Tony Randazzo (1, 2), who at the time wrote to us:
"The hell? I was at Fenway watching and it was more than clear that Tiny Randazzo was blowing calls left and right. What kind of messed up computer graph are you using? Looks like a fake you'd put together in mspaint"
IMHO I agree that the hand was reaching over the, but the glove made contact with the fan directly on top of the wall, which is a legal play. directly over the wall and back the fan has a right to do whatever he wants to the fielder. i think the image plastered on the front of the video on this site shows just this, the glove was reaching back out of play, and the fan got in the way
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110904&content_id=24211006&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
Dan said...
@Anon 9:13pm:
Did they do a new poll rating the umpires for 2011? Cause on the last poll I remember seeing, the one for 2010 from ESPN Magazine, Joe West had 35% rate him as the worst. CB Bucknor was voted the worst at 37%.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Typical one sided statement about the poll above.
Joe was rated the worst by 41%.
However, with fair and unbiased reporting and not conveniently leaving out the second part of the equation, Joe had 5% rate him as the best umpire. This put him in 5th place as the best umpire. None of the other 63 umpires were rated in the top 5 as the best.
Leads me to believe that a lot of the 41% are a bunch of whiners who expect the umpires to put up with their nonsense, and since he will not do this, he gets a bad rating. The 5% positive know that he is a very good umpire that doesn't take a bunch of gruff and respect him for that, otherwise they would have whined and voted for him as the worst.
@Janet: That post is idiotic. Learn the rules of baseball or stay out of here.
I don't have a dog in this fight. But it's clear that Peterson's glove extended *above* the fence, so it's logical to review this based on "HR or not" criteria from what could be seen in real-time.
Once they reviewed it, the fan INT became obvious. You might argue that they mis-awarded bases, but that's strictly the judgment of the umpires.
@ 12:16, that's not the rule, either. Just answer this question: where did the fans touch the ball? Over the field of play or over the spectator area.
There are multiple ways to get interference out of this play.
@ anon 928 am, the ball was touched in front of the fence, but the glove contact was not, the fielder would have missed the ball regardless of the hat being there or not due to the contact with the hand.
@12:16-
Pretend there's fence extending to the sky on top of the wall. That's the rule. That's the line the fans cannot cross. The fielder did not reach into the stands. I'm shocked at the ignorant posts on this particular play. However, I love how anybody can posts their views, no matter how wrong.
And of course Joe will not win a popularity contest among managers, and he shouldn't.
If Joe were to concern himself with being liked, he would be the most liked umpire. He was never told to make sure managers like him, he was told to enforce rules.
@10:20, *facepalm*
That's not the rule either. What no one on the "he's wrong" side seems to understand, and this is true ALL OVER the internet, and what all of us who understand the correctness of the call have been trying to communicate, is that it doesn't matter whether the fielder definitely would have caught the ball. It doesn't matter. All that matters is exactly what it says in the rules, exactly what it says in the original write up, interference prevents him from that potential for catching the ball. If it does, it's an out. That means if his glove is in the vicinity of that ball (which it was), NOT if his glove was directly behind the ball, then it's an out on interference.
If people would just read the dang rule book, case play book, and interpretation manual, we wouldn't have a problem.
@10:20am-
I don't think your description of the play is accurate. To me, it looked like the glove was clearly prevented from catching the ball. Would the fielder actually caught the ball? I don't know for sure. But remember, that's a judgement the umpires DO NOT have to make. Once interference is called, the rule takes over. Veteran umpires will understand my next comment. We all know that if as umpire we call obstruction/interference there's awards and outs must be called. So quite often we will not make either of these calls as the award doesn't fit the infraction. But once we yell these 2 words we are forced to follow the book. For example a runner who is obstructed going "back" to a base he's already acquired. In this case if the runner is not out because of the obstruction, "we" are most likely not going to call obstruction, because if "we" do make that call, the ball is dead, and the runner would be awarded 1 base beyond the base he had at the time of the obstruction. So even though he would have never made it to the next base, as he wasn't even trying, he would by the award get the next base. If the runner was out on the obstruction play, then "we" would call it, and enforce the rule.
The point? Once Joe decided there was fan interference, there's no need to judge whether or not the ball would be caught. This is not the NFL, and there's no such thing as non-catch able ball, on fan interference.
@ the guy who told Janet to leave, cause she doesn't know what she's talking about.
It's our job to educate fans and players. People (Janet) like to be on the right side of an argument. She thinks she is correct, but once she understands that the reverse is true, it's more likely she'll come away with the idea, that maybe she doesn't really know the rules, or that what she has been told by someone isn't the truth. Exclusion is not the answer for civil discourse. Only by inclusion can a person understand the error of their ways. If she leaves, she will think we are a bunch of S.O.B.'s, and that she was right. If she stays, she can't possibly believe that her perception is correct.
I love baseball!
I've read articles on Yahoo!, on Bleacher Report, even on MLB.com, but this is the first website that says the call and decision to go to video was 100% right...
...and this is also the first website I've seen that cites all rules, clearly and concisely explains everything, and comes to a logical conclusion, instead of using some preconceived notion about Joe West's personal attributes, hypotheticals, editorializing that a rule SHOULD say X, etc.
Well done, Umpire Ejection Fantasy League. You've earned a fan.
QOC Quick Vote currently showing 63 Correct to 8 Incorrect to 2 Inconclusive. Hmm..... What if we did QOC Quick Vote on a non-umpire rules site...
@10:50am- (my post)
Somebody smarter than me, maybe can answer this question. I've be working games for nearly 30yrs. I called fan interference 1 time about 20yrs ago, in a kids game when a parent tried to catch a ball from one of those small stands that have about 5 rows and are about 20ft long.
The stands were, for some reason reversed with the top row closest to the field of play, so the parent was 10ft higher than the player.
So, the question is, and after reading the additional ruling that has been posted. What else could Joe have done? If he rules fan interference, could he have ruled a no catch? I suppose it would be a double?
In my previous post, I stated that once Joe rules fan interference, it's an out. But now after reading the latest clarification, I'm not so sure. It looks as though Joe was not "bound" to call an out. Listen I understand that if the ball had already hit the ground and a fan touches it, it's a double, but I have a hard time believing Joe would say that yes indeed it was fan interference, but not called an out. Does anybody follow?
@Jim 12:54pm- Your post is exactly what I said about 2 months ago. These guys over here are pretty good, and make no mistake, their in no way on the umpires side, these guy's are on the side of the rules. If you notice a lot of us old timers that post are ALWAYS on the umpires side, arguing that the practicality and history of the rules are most important. So with that said, this site is not an umpire apologist site, believe me umpires get hammered. Just ask my favorite umpire Bob!!
@annon 4:55 fan interference is not a double. It is in the umpires judgement where would the runner have gotten had there not been fan interference. It just usually ends up being a double so most fans think its a ground rule double. O yeah and Joe got the call exactly right I dont get why so many people think different.
Remember, fan interference happens when a fan interferes with either the ball in play or the fielder making a play. The ball is dead and the umpires will act in a way to nullify the interference. In Joe's case, he could have ruled the right fielder would not have caught the ball and most likely would have left the batter and runner where they ended up. But because Joe thought the right fielder would have caught the ball, you now have the batter out and he would have placed the runner where he thought he would have ended up. In this case....back at first.
Excellent job of using all the resources. Could you imagine the uproar, if Joe hadn't used replay......the arrogant West chant would have started anew.
@6:50pm & 7:02pm- Thanks for the clarification, it was pretty much the answer I expected, after reading the additional info that was posted in the description. ( I just registered, I'm no longer anonymous after posting for 3 months)
Additionally, doesn't anybody think the only thin ice Joe was on was assuming the catch? Without the interference from the fan, it would have been a spectacular grab. I don't think Joe was wrong, but did want to point out that it was not a normal effort play. I think any level below the Bigs, you wouldn't be able to assume a catch on this play. And then I was wrong when I said the ball doesn't have to be catch-able, when fan interference is called. As you guys stated Joe could have ruled interference, but still not called an out. I'd like to hear Joe talk about how hard it was to quickly decide to call an out VS no catch and fan interference.
Thanks again guys.
Protest Denied
MLB's Executive VP of Baseball Operations, Joe Torre, has denied the Phillies' protest of this game. The decision was announced via Press Release on September 7, 2011.
It would be nice if Torre announced why the protest was denied.
Joe Torre is probably one of the worst things to ever happen to the MLB Executive Office...just sayin'
Of course Torre THE YANKEE would deny the Phillies protest. Double standard, he celebrates JEFFREY MAIER CHEATING to win a world series and then lets his cowboy break the rules to get the call wrong. You only can call fan interference if the fan RUNS ON THE FIELD. Come on JOE
@Anonymous 7:19AM, protest was denied because it was an authorized use of IR: as Joe said, it was a possible HR situation, as everyone on this site has said (and the writeup above says it too), Joe can go to IR on his own, without the coach challenging it. Think: NFL Replay with less than 2 minutes.
@Anonymous 8:37PM, Have to semi-agree. But I will credit Selig with making it that much easier to throw McCourt out of baseball and reclaim the Dodgers. With Torre as Manager, MLB would have been completely unable - or unwilling - to do anything to LAD.
@Janet... both times Janet has posted... Or rather, this is @Gil... Referee magazine has a section called "they said it" or "Say What?" (it's on the same page as "Give us a Break," which you will remembe is where they featured this very website http://umpireejections.blogspot.com/2011/05/uefl-history-referee-magazine.html). Anywho... can we feature Janet's posts in a weekly "Say What?" segment?
@9:12pm-
I agree about Janet, give her the floor. In fact maybe just highlighting her, and only her posts on this site, so I don't miss them, there gold!
Her down home folksy bashing, reminds me of an angry Mark Twain.
Anywho, Torre is told what to do. MLB runs the show, they'd never let Torre loose, or should they. If they don't like Joe's ruling, they tell him to try again. It's not like they hired Judge K.M. Landis. They knew Joe would do what they wanted, so he got the job.
Post a Comment