Robbed of a perfect game!

[Click Ticker]

I don't see it posted yet. Armando Galaragga of the Detroit Tigers was one out away from a perfect game last night. The umpire clearly blew the last call of the game taking away the perfect game. The next batter was retired and the game was over.

Should baseball reverse the call, or would that set a precedent unacceptable to most baseball fans?

Being from Michigan and a Tigers fan and knowing that it would have been the first perfect game thrown by a Tigers pitcher in the 100+ year history of the team, I'm a little biased in my view.

[SeanF]

Personally, I kind of like the fact that baseball doesn't use video replay to the extent that some other sports (like American football) do. Sure, the umpires make mistakes sometimes, but that's part of the game. Just my opinion.

A couple of comments about the specific story: first, it seems like the umpire is being harder on himself than the pitcher! Also, from watching the video of the event, it looks to me like the umpire was starting to make an out call but then changed it to a safe call. It was a pretty close play, and a tie goes to the runner, so...

[Click Ticker]

Pretty close? He was a full step away, not a shoe lace. Everybody but the first base umpire knew he was safe. The guy in the bleachers in center field could have made that call.

[jfribrg]

I don't agree with the argument that it is just part of the game. The argument is that it would slow down the game. I don't see that to be the case because more often than not the manager comes out and wastes 5 minutes arguing with the ump. Instead of arguing about whether things even out in the long run, why not make a provision for getting things right in the first place. There are ways of preventing the reviews from slowing down the game. One such provision would be to prohibit the manager from coming on the field. Give them one appeal per game.

As a start, why not have a simple rule to allow replays on potential game ending plays. When you're in the situation where if the ump makes the right call then the game is over, why not allow some kind of appeal process? This rule would rarely come into play, but would have applied in this case. You don't even need to do the review at that time. It could be treated like the current protest provision.

I also recall a case a few years ago where My Favorite Team lost to another division rival on a botched call on what should have been the final out of the game. The ump later admitted that he made the wrong call. If the ump called it right, my team would have won. It turns out that said division rival made the playoffs by 2 games over my team. With a correct call, the season would have ended in a tie, resulting in a one game playoff.

Analgously, in fencing, many years ago there was much controversy over the development of electronic scoring equipment. Purists argued that the subjective nature of referree-based scoring was an integral part of the sport. Fortunately they lost that argument and now the scoring is accurate.

[Swift]

I had been listening to the game on the radio (they were playing "my" Indians) and then I watched the eigth and ninth inning. I feel really bad for the Detroit pitcher, it was a terrible call, not even close, as Click said. Actually, I do think they should reverse the decision, but it will never happen. And yes, they should have some sort of video replay in baseball. Both football and basketball have figured out how to do it without any serious delays. Do it like football, where a team gets a limited number of requests for review per game - something like 1 or 2. It only takes 2 or 3 minutes to review it. I like the tradition in baseball, but this seems like a big improvement.

[Fazor]

Soccer is great in that it gives the refs a lot of freedom to use their own judgment. Sure it leads to a lot of calls that a fan might not agree with, but in the end, I prefer it that way. I haven't seen the play yet myself, but a lot of players around the league are defending umpire. Not this particular call, per se. But they're pointing out that he's a veteran with a great reputation and past history. Everyone makes mistakes.

And for the record, even though I'm a die-hard Indians fan, I really wish he had finished a perfect game. I think most baseball fans would be rooting for the same thing even if it's against their team. A perfect game is much more exciting and amazing than a meaningless regular season win or loss.

[Larry Jacks]

But they're pointing out that he's a veteran with a great reputation and past history. Everyone makes mistakes.

No one is saying he's a bad man or that he made a deliberately bad call. The umpire himself said he blew the call when he saw the replay. As a professional umpire, he knows how rare a perfect game is (only about 20 of them in the last 100 years with 2 of them this year). I'm sure he feels terrible about denying the pitcher a perfect game due to a mistake on his part. He really sounds like a descent guy.

I do believe it's possible to implement instant replay for baseball if they incorporate the lessons learned by other sports such as limiting the number of challenges each team is allowed. There may be some logistical challenges, such as the number of TV cameras covering any given regular season game. A lot of baseball games may not be broadcast on TV or may only have a local station providing coverage which would limit the replay opportunities. However, they made the same arguments against instant replay for football games a long time ago but somehow managed a workable solution.

[Fazor]

But they're pointing out that he's a veteran with a great reputation and past history. Everyone makes mistakes.
No one is saying he's a bad man or that he made a deliberately bad call.

No one here is speaking ill of him, but plenty of people elsewhere are (in fairness, talk radio and online article comments sections aren't exactly bastions of reason).

I still don't think you can go back after the fact and recall a decision. If I'm mad that Barry Bonds reached the all-time home run record, can I go back and review footage of every home run he ever hit to see if maybe one was called wrong, that way we can take his record away?

I wouldn't argue with instant replay at the time the call occured (i.e., during the game, before the next batter, pitch, whatever). But that's not instituted now. I'm also not going to take up the cause to expand it's use in baseball, because personally, I don't think it's that important. I don't mind some errors here and there. (I may in fact feel differently if I was the pitcher in question though).

I will say, after watching the clip on youtube, it really wasn't close. One angle they showed looked like it might have been "close but still should be an out". The other angle, which was closer to the umpire's point of view, showed he was out by a mile.

[SeanF]

Pretty close? He was a full step away, not a shoe lace. Everybody but the first base umpire knew he was safe. The guy in the bleachers in center field could have made that call.

I'm going to disagree with this. It was a bang-bang play, and even watching the Detroit players' reactions (not to mention that of manager Jim Leyland) suggests that, while they certainly wanted the call to go their way, they didn't think it was egregiously wrong. Watching a video replay doesn't even begin to compare to trying to make those calls live.

I am going to stick to my interpretation of Joyce's body language, though - he was starting to make the out call, and then changed his mind. I can't help wondering if he was afraid he was letting the perfect game get to him and was about to make a wrong call in favor of Detroit.

I see that with Joyce behind the plate in today's game, Detroit had Galaragga take the line-up card out to him at the start of the game. Seems almost like a mean thing to do.

[Parrothead]

I'm glad the ump admitted his error. I guess this will be one that goes in the record books with an asterik. Glad to see Halladay get a perfect game last week. He had come within an out of one, the second game he pitched for Toronto.

[Swift]

I see that with Joyce behind the plate in today's game, Detroit had Galaragga take the line-up card out to him at the start of the game. Seems almost like a mean thing to do.

Wow, I had the complete opposite reaction, I thought having Galaragga bring it out was a classy thing to do, and Jim Leyland has always been a classy guy. from MLB.com

Galarraga and the Tigers promoted a spirit of forgiveness rather than rehash the controversy that sent a flurry of boos his way on Wednesday.

The Tigers pitcher, who was given a car prior to the game, brought out the lineup card and shook hands with Joyce at the pregame home-plate meeting.

Joyce was tearful as fans offered applause.

[SeanF]

Wow, I had the complete opposite reaction, I thought having Galaragga bring it out was a classy thing to do, and Jim Leyland has always been a classy guy. from MLB.com

Oh, I understand that. I can't really explain my reaction to it, but it's almost like, "Hey, it's me! Remember? The guy you screwed over last night? How ya doing?"

You know?

[Swift]

Oh, I understand that. I can't really explain my reaction to it, but it's almost like, "Hey, it's me! Remember? The guy you screwed over last night? How ya doing?"

You know?

Joyce and Galaragga apparently also met privately last night. After Joyce saw the replays he publicly appologized and then wanted to meet privately with Galaragga to appologize in person. I'm impressed by the mature behavior of all the parties involved.

[Fazor]

Joyce and Galaragga apparently also met privately last night. After Joyce saw the replays he publicly appologized and then wanted to meet privately with Galaragga to appologize in person. I'm impressed by the mature behavior of all the parties involved.

I know! Right? I mean, what is this world coming to? Two public figures in SPORTS acting like mature adults? There's absolutely NO room for maturity and civility in sports! They better be careful, or networks like FOX may stop broadcasting the games.

[jfribrg]

I saw that the commish isn't going to overrule the ump. I suspect that he will eventually, but I suspect that he will take a few months just so it doesn't look like a knee-jerk emotional reaction. At some point the time will come when this type of play is reviewable and at that point it will probably be retroactively declared a perfect game.

There is a precedent to declaring a perfect game by fiat. On June 23,1917, Babe Ruth was the pitcher and walked the first batter of the game. He argued wth the ump about it, and was ejected from the game. That runner was caught stealing, and Ernie Shore, the replacement pitcher, then retired the remaining 26 batters in order. Since he was credited with retiring all 27 opposing players, the game was listed as a perfect game. That was changed in the 1990's.

[SeanF]

At some point the time will come when this type of play is reviewable and at that point it will probably be retroactively declared a perfect game.

Oh, I hope not.

There is a precedent to declaring a perfect game by fiat. On June 23,1917, Babe Ruth was the pitcher and walked the first batter of the game. He argued wth the ump about it, and was ejected from the game. That runner was caught stealing, and Ernie Shore, the replacement pitcher, then retired the remaining 26 batters in order. Since he was credited with retiring all 27 opposing players, the game was listed as a perfect game. That was changed in the 1990's.

I'm not sure an overturned precedent really counts too much as a precedent.

[Fazor]

Galaragga was awarded a shiny new Corvette by Chevy for his perfect game. The governor has 'declared' it a perfect game. Everyone (or most everyone) who's seen the pitch thinks it should have been an out and thus thinks he pitched a perfect game. I don't think it matters much if it gets officially overturned.

I don't think it should be officially overturned though. How many perfect games, or other sports feats, have been awarded during a game that had some questionable calls go in the awardee's favor? Should those get reviewed too? Let it be what it is.

[SeanF]

I don't think it should be officially overturned though. How many perfect games, or other sports feats, have been awarded during a game that had some questionable calls go in the awardee's favor? Should those get reviewed too? Let it be what it is.

Exactly. Before he gets awarded with a perfect game, best make sure none of those outs resulted from a called strike that video replay shows was clearly out of the zone.

[Jim]

I'm not surprised at Selig's "ruling" not to reverse the call. He has based his career on keeping the owners happy and making very few waves.

However, reversing the call and declaring the game over - and therefor perfect - establishes a very specific precedent:
1. This would have been the last out of the game.
2. There were nor errors on the play.
3. The runner did not advance beyond first.
4. The outcome of the game was unchanged.
5. The umpire admitted he made a bad call.

If there is another case which meets all five of those restrictions, review it. This does not open the door to instant replay or later review in any other case.

[Fazor]

You know what though, by not getting the perfect game, Galaragga has likely become the most famous perfect-game pitcher in baseball. Had he been awarded the call, he'd just be another name on the list and an interesting fact thrown out when he pitched in future games.

[SeanF]

I'm not surprised at Selig's "ruling" not to reverse the call. He has based his career on keeping the owners happy and making very few waves.

However, reversing the call and declaring the game over - and therefor perfect - establishes a very specific precedent:
1. This would have been the last out of the game.
2. There were nor errors on the play.
3. The runner did not advance beyond first.
4. The outcome of the game was unchanged.
5. The umpire admitted he made a bad call.

If there is another case which meets all five of those restrictions, review it. This does not open the door to instant replay or later review in any other case.

Numbers four and five seem odd. Number 4 wasn't known to be true until after the next batter was put out (and *may* have not ended up being true - Cleveland could've come back and won the game) - and seems to suggest that we would only use review where it doesn't matter. Number 5 didn't occur until even later, after the umpire himself watched the video replay.

What if the umpire had called the guy out, and subsequent video review showed him to be safe? (This would seem to meet all five of your criteria, BTW, although the wording of number 1 makes it iffy) Would the same people who argue that Galaragga deserves the perfect game be then arguing that it should be taken away from him?

[Fazor]

Oh, I guess in the interest of fairness, I did read an article sometime within the last year (from Sports Illustrated) about a pitcher who had been awarded a perfect game, then years later it was taken away on a technicality that was no fault of his own. It may have been the one mentioned earlier in this thread but I don't think so.

The situation was something like this: he pitched 13 innings of perfect ball, because he team failed to score a run to win the game on into extra innings. He was replaced after the 13th inning, and the team eventually won. Years later, they decided that because he didn't complete the game, it could not be called a perfect game. So the pitcher to pitch the longest ever recorded perfect game does not get to be listed as pitching a perfect game. There's the precedent for being unfair.

ETA: Into the 13th inning, not through 13. Harvey Haddix

[Fazor]

Dang. Research first, Fazor! Post second. I've added the link. Slightly different than I remembered. Wasn't a perfect game. It was the longest shut-out complete game. But to add insult to injury, it met the criteria for a complete game when he was awarded it . . . in 1959. Then, in 1991, they MLB changed the definition of 'complete game' and since it didn't fit the new definition, the took it away from him.

[SeanF]

Dang. Research first, Fazor! Post second. I've added the link. Slightly different than I remembered. Wasn't a perfect game. It was the longest shut-out complete game. But to add insult to injury, it met the criteria for a complete game when he was awarded it . . . in 1959. Then, in 1991, they MLB changed the definition of 'complete game' and since it didn't fit the new definition, the took it away from him.

Sometimes they do that, sometimes they don't.

They score game-ending home runs now differently than they used to - it used to be that you only got credit for the bases needed, just like if the ball had not gone over the fence. For example: tie game, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded. Batter hits the ball over the fence. He would only be credited with a single and one run batted in, on the logic that the game ends as soon as the runner from third crosses the plate. Under current scoring rules, he gets a home run and four RBIs.

When they changed the rule, they went back through the old games and started giving home runs to players who had been affected by the old rule. Until they found out that Babe Ruth was one of them. They then decided that there was no way they were going to change his career HR total to something other than 714, so they just left everybody's the way they were.

[DonM435]

Those two cases mentioned were different from the present one. Those didn't involve an on-field call, but rather a change in the definition of what constitutes a no-hitter and a perfect game. This is from memory, and both were before my time, but I think it's right . . .

The official recordkeepers decided that Ernie Shore's game wasn't perfect because . . . well, there was that runner on first base for thirty seconds or so. Greatest relief performance ever, quite possibly. Perfect game, not.

In 1959, Harvey Haddix of the Pirates threw 12 perfect innings. That's 36 up, 36 down. It was still 0-0 in the 13th when the Milwaukee Braves won with an error, sacrifice, an intentional walk and, at last, (egad!) a hit.* Greatest pitching performance ever, quite possibly. Perfect Game, no.

Those two games used to appear on official lists of perfect games along with some 5-to-8 inning games that were shortened by weather or other reasons, or games with nine perfect innings followed by imperfection in the 10th inning. To clear some clutter, the baseball bigshots declared some time in the 1990s that a no-hitter had to be a game of nine or more innings in which there were no hits (i.e., not any) allowed. A perfect game only occurred when everybody (i.e., everybody) was put out without reaching base.

But it's just a matter of definition. Everybody's free to draw up his or her own list. They could go back to the looser definition at some future date.



*Fascinating finish. Hank Aaron homered to end it at 3-0, or so it appeared. One of the base runners thought the ball fell short of the fence, and as his teammate had already scored the winning run, this guy left the basepath and headed for the clubhouse. Aaron completed the home run trot and thus passed this missing runner. Because of this, he was declared out, lost the home run and got only a double out of it, though it was enough to win the game anyway. After hovering at 2-0 overnight, the game was finally recorded as a 1-0 win the next day. It's a good thing that there weren't two out when all this happened or Haddix might have had to mow 'em down for several more innings.

[Fazor]

A perfect game only occurred when everybody (i.e., everybody) was put out without reaching base.

Well, then Galragga's obviously isn't a perfect game. Donald reached base. Sure it was on a bad call, but we only notice because it was the last out of the game. How many potential perfect games have been broken up by a bad call in the 6th inning? 3rd? 1st? Obviously the difference is we know that it would have remained a perfect game had the bad call been made correctly. Call a runner safe in the first inning, you have no way to every know how the game may have played out differently.

I still say it's just part of the game. It's made more potent because it's at one extreme of the "look what happened!" spectrum.

(And if I had to argue myself, I'd say "So what if it happens and can't be fixed (e.g. a bad call that's not the final out), why not fix it when we know we can?" )

[SeanF]

Those two cases mentioned were different from the present one. Those didn't involve an on-field call, but rather a change in the definition of what constitutes a no-hitter and a perfect game.

True. The closest analogy to this situation is probably the "Pine Tar Incident".

For those who don't know: In the top of the ninth, trailing by one, the KC Royals' George Brett hit a two-run home run to put the Royals up on the Yankees by one. Yankees manager Billy Martin questioned whether Brett's bat had too much pine tar on the handle - the umpires decided it did and called Brett out, nullifying the home run and ending the game. The Royals protested, and League President Lee MacPhail overturned the umpires. The final four outs of the game were finished out at a later date, with the Royals ultimately winning.

Even that's not a perfect analogy to this case, though, because the overruling was based on the idea that the umpire had simply misapplied a rule, not that a wrong call had been made. That is, they didn't say that something different occurred than what the umpires thought occurred, just that the remedy the umpires chose was not the correct remedy.

*Fascinating finish. Hank Aaron homered to end it at 3-0, or so it appeared. One of the base runners thought the ball fell short of the fence, and as his teammate had already scored the winning run, this guy left the basepath and headed for the clubhouse. Aaron completed the home run trot and thus passed this missing runner. Because of this, he was declared out, lost the home run and got only a double out of it, though it was enough to win the game anyway. After hovering at 2-0 overnight, the game was finally recorded as a 1-0 win the next day. It's a good thing that there weren't two out when all this happened or Haddix might have had to mow 'em down for several more innings.

Actually, Aaron was the runner who thought the ball had fallen short and left the base paths. Joe Adcock was the final hitter. Per Fazor's link above.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Jim
I'm not surprised at Selig's "ruling" not to reverse the call. He has based his career on keeping the owners happy and making very few waves.

However, reversing the call and declaring the game over - and therefor perfect - establishes a very specific precedent:
1. This would have been the last out of the game.
2. There were no errors on the play.
3. The runner did not advance beyond first.
4. The outcome of the game was unchanged.
5. The umpire admitted he made a bad call.

If there is another case which meets all five of those restrictions, review it. This does not open the door to instant replay or later review in any other case.

Numbers four and five seem odd. Number 4 wasn't known to be true until after the next batter was put out (and *may* have not ended up being true - Cleveland could've come back and won the game) ...

Before the third batter, the score was 1-0 Detroit; after the 4th batter, the score was 1-0 Detroit. Had Cleveland scored, the outcome would have been different. So Selig's ruling would not alter the outcome.

... and seems to suggest that we would only use review where it doesn't matter.

It matters to Galaragga and Joyce. The criteria are very case-specific; if you can't change the outcome of the game, who'd bother? Selig doesn't have to worry about a slew of protests asking to change outcomes.

Number 5 didn't occur until even later, after the umpire himself watched the video replay.

Right, which means no instant replay precedent is being established.

What if the umpire had called the guy out, and subsequent video review showed him to be safe?

Doesn't meet #4. The outcome of the game could have been different.

(This would seem to meet all five of your criteria, BTW, although the wording of number 1 makes it iffy) Would the same people who argue that Galaragga deserves the perfect game be then arguing that it should be taken away from him?

Wouldn't meet #4.

The idea behind those 5 criteria is to make them as case-specific as possible. Selig doesn't want to set a precedent that could come back and bite him (by upsetting his, uh, the owners) and this would not. Unless the exact same thing happens again.

[DonM435]

Actually, Aaron was the runner who thought the ball had fallen short and left the base paths. Joe Adcock was the final hitter. Per Fazor's link above.

Why are we whispering?
Oh, it's my fault! Computer, embiggen!

That's right! Must have been Adcock . . . he was always getting involved in strange plays and games.

Memory is the second thing to go. I forget what the first one was.

As Aaron approached Ruth's HR record, we were always reminded of a homer he lost when ruled out of the batter's box on contact. I'm sure they'd have mentioned this one too, had it been him.

Actually, the Pine Tar Game is the situation for which a protest can be entertained. You can question an ump's interpretation of a rule, but not his judgment of a fact (e.g., ball or stike, fair or foul, safe or out).

[SeanF]

Before the third batter, the score was 1-0 Detroit; after the 4th batter, the score was 1-0 Detroit. Had Cleveland scored, the outcome would have been different. So Selig's ruling would not alter the outcome.

Actually, it was 3-0. But anyway, you're arguing that you should use replay if an individual player's statistics are on the line, but not if the actual game is on the line? So if the blown call resulted in Detroit losing the perfect game and losing the actual game, they're out of luck, but if it's just the perfect game, they've got recourse? I don't get it. What's the logic behind that?

I mean, I understand that you're trying to avoid "precedent," but what you're actually doing is separating this incident from other incidents of arguably equal or greater importance. If those other incidents aren't important enough to warrant video review, then why is this one?