I definitely wouldn't be happy. But anyone who watches a lot of baseball knows that MLB is filled with umpires who make bad calls on a regular basis. This is just one of the most egregious because of the circumstances. Also, because of the media coverage of the event - what does it matter that Galarraga doesn't have an official perfect game? In the minds of most fans, he pitched a perfect game.

 

I think it is pretty evident that umpires need to be reined in, though. Between umpires overstepping their bounds like "Cowboy Joe" and routine bad calls, there is a major problem here. At the very least there are MLB needs to be a stricter system of evaluation of umpire performance than what is in place now with remedies that include suspensions and termination for poor performance.

 

This might be a problem because of the umpires' union. At this point the problem may be so big with MLB umpires as a whole that drastic measures might be needed. I really wouldn't be against MLB canning every single umpire and hiring minor league umpires with the proviso that they are not allowed to unionize. Good MLB umpires that were fired - as evaluated by some time of measure MLB develops - could be rehired, but again only if they agree not to unionize.

 

That might be a bit harsh, but I think at this point umpires are out of control and some of the incompetence that is tolerated in the game is shameful.

How would I feel if Johnson got screwed like that by the umpire? Just the same if it was Sanchez, Volstad, Nolasco or Robertson.

What I hate about this is that the solution for everyone is to take another step towards having an automated system for umpiring in place. I like having umpires in the game, and I don't want to see baseball games get bogged down in reviews of practically everything. I like having real humans actually out there making decisions, and I like the current arbitration system of a manager giving them absolute hell when they screw one up, which can actually play a major part in momentum.

 

I just can't believe that, given the circumstances, an umpire would even think of not giving the benefit of the doubt on a very close call to the guy throwing a perfect game. Many great performances, including Halladay last week, were capped by some generous calls, and that's been part of the game and if a pitcher is doing that well, they deserve it. A week later nobody remembers if the last out made at first was a close play that might have gone the other way if you give it to the pitcher. But nobody will forget this happening.

 

If I were the pitcher, I would genuinely be crying myself to sleep at night.

I would be furious and would probably demand for instant replay for about a day or two, but once my anger is gone I'm able to think rationally, I would know that no drastic changes should be made.

I keep saying it but the perfect resolution to the problem last night was simply for the rest of the umpire crew to get together with Joyce after the play.

 

"We just want to make sure, did you call him safe based on a bobble or foot came off the bag maybe? Because the rest of us are certain that the throw beat him."

 

problem solved.

 

There were no other runners on base so all the other umps I'm sure were watching the play too. And everyone in the entire stadium could see he was out.

They're just about adopt a wide ranging replay standard for international cricket, a sport, like baseball, that can have umpires making terrible decisions that can seriously affect the outcome of the match. They have been using instant replay for several years, but only for things like the equivalent of determining if it's a home run (a "6" in cricket) or a trapped ball during a fielder's catch. In the future, they have bowed to the inevitable and are essentially going to allow all major umpiring decisions to be challenged, by either team.

 

The way the system works is that there is an extra umpire working the reply in a booth, and when a decision is in question, an umpire on the field (would be the ump behind the plate in baseball) signals for help from a reply, the result of which appears on the main screen in the stadium. The umps also have walkie-talkies if they need to consult. There is no running off the field to a phone, and it's all over in about 30 seconds to a minute depending on the closeness of the call. No need for a 2 or 3 minute delay if you do it right.

 

Finally, whenever a player is given "out" or "not out" by an umpire, the batter who is given out, or the captain of the side in the field (when "not out" is the call) can appeal twice per inning (In baseball this would be twice per game, since in cricket there is only one inning in a one day game) but if you win your appeal, then you do get another one. This keeps the number of replay appeals down to a minimum and ensures there are no frivolous ones made. (This is similar to the replay system in tennis)

 

The only major problem in the trial period last year was that players were taking too long to decide whether to appeal a decision or not. In fact, they would watch for one of their coaches to watch a replay on TV and then given them a signal to tell them if they should appeal. I believe they are adding a 15 second rule to stop that from happening in future.

 

So I don't see why baseball can't go with instant replays. I am sure that they will not have replays for balls and strikes, but you can give each side two replay appeals per game that they can use for base-running plays and catches. There should be another official in the booth in charge of the replay and either use a sign to indicate an appeal, or give them walkie-talkies. You're probably adding less time to a game than you could save by stopping batters from wandering out of the box and adjusting 15 articles of clothing before stepping back in. (a couple of minutes in most cases). Oh, and leave the home run replay as it is, automatic for difficult calls.

The Commissioner has broad powers, he can instruct the hall of fame, and baseball's official record, to record this as a Perfect Game.

I don't want to open a can of worms, but the umpire made the right call. Did the runner beat the throw to first? No, but Galarraga did not have full control of the ball when he caught it. Replays clearly show he snowconed the catch and double clutched the ball before it settled into his glove. If this was any other situation, people would not be focusing so much on the runner beating the throw and would realize that the pitcher didn't even have control of the ball. Runner was safe.

By changing the call, you are putting one player above the team and the game itself... The Tigers still won the game, move on

 

 

huh? It isn't changing the outcome of the game or affecting either team really whatsoever. it's not all that much different than the official scorer going back & changing a hit to an error.

The "Huh" is that the Tigers still won the game, so why are you going to change the outcome just to appease some single individual achievement, that isn't right....Changing a hit from an error from an official scorer is not the same thing as changing out versus safe from an umpire (because hit or error still means the players will be on the basepaths either way), that is a difference...In this case you are going in to change an official umpire's decision just for one person? Then let's go back to every umpire screw up in every game and fix them...Let's take away all the bullsh*t umpire strike calls that Livan got in the '97 playoffs and take away ALL of those questionable strike outs, because as glad as I was the Marlins won, you know damn well the umpires influenced that game against the Braves... Baseball is a team sport, individual achievements are extra... If it happened to JJ, yeah Id be pissed but the team still won, there are more games to play, move on

The Commissioner has broad powers, he can instruct the hall of fame, and baseball's official record, to record this as a Perfect Game.

 

Makes Selig sound like he is Emperor Palpatine

I keep saying it but the perfect resolution to the problem last night was simply for the rest of the umpire crew to get together with Joyce after the play.

 

"We just want to make sure, did you call him safe based on a bobble or foot came off the bag maybe? Because the rest of us are certain that the throw beat him."

 

problem solved.

 

There were no other runners on base so all the other umps I'm sure were watching the play too. And everyone in the entire stadium could see he was out.

 

I agree if there was a deliberation IMMEDIATELY after the play and a decision was made to change the call that very little fuss would be made. Choosing to change a call the next day / days later just sounds like a cheap move

I don't want to open a can of worms, but the umpire made the right call. Did the runner beat the throw to first? No, but Galarraga did not have full control of the ball when he caught it. Replays clearly show he snowconed the catch and double clutched the ball before it settled into his glove. If this was any other situation, people would not be focusing so much on the runner beating the throw and would realize that the pitcher didn't even have control of the ball. Runner was safe.

 

 

Really? Really? No... did you not watch that? Galarraga caught that and it hit the inside of the glove while the runner was still a full stride from the base and bounced to the tip of the glove. The ball arrived in time. He was OUT. It's not the same as bobbling. If the ball is in the glove as long as he doesnt drop it, the runner is out once control is placed over that ball. And control was almost simeltaneous with the catch.

They're just about adopt a wide ranging replay standard for international cricket, a sport, like baseball, that can have umpires making terrible decisions that can seriously affect the outcome of the match. They have been using instant replay for several years, but only for things like the equivalent of determining if it's a home run (a "6" in cricket) or a trapped ball during a fielder's catch. In the future, they have bowed to the inevitable and are essentially going to allow all major umpiring decisions to be challenged, by either team.

 

The way the system works is that there is an extra umpire working the reply in a booth, and when a decision is in question, an umpire on the field (would be the ump behind the plate in baseball) signals for help from a reply, the result of which appears on the main screen in the stadium. The umps also have walkie-talkies if they need to consult. There is no running off the field to a phone, and it's all over in about 30 seconds to a minute depending on the closeness of the call. No need for a 2 or 3 minute delay if you do it right.

 

Finally, whenever a player is given "out" or "not out" by an umpire, the batter who is given out, or the captain of the side in the field (when "not out" is the call) can appeal twice per inning (In baseball this would be twice per game, since in cricket there is only one inning in a one day game) but if you win your appeal, then you do get another one. This keeps the number of replay appeals down to a minimum and ensures there are no frivolous ones made. (This is similar to the replay system in tennis)

 

The only major problem in the trial period last year was that players were taking too long to decide whether to appeal a decision or not. In fact, they would watch for one of their coaches to watch a replay on TV and then given them a signal to tell them if they should appeal. I believe they are adding a 15 second rule to stop that from happening in future.

 

So I don't see why baseball can't go with instant replays. I am sure that they will not have replays for balls and strikes, but you can give each side two replay appeals per game that they can use for base-running plays and catches. There should be another official in the booth in charge of the replay and either use a sign to indicate an appeal, or give them walkie-talkies. You're probably adding less time to a game than you could save by stopping batters from wandering out of the box and adjusting 15 articles of clothing before stepping back in. (a couple of minutes in most cases). Oh, and leave the home run replay as it is, automatic for difficult calls.

 

It's like this in a lot of North American sports, too: a third party is involved in deciding disputed calls. The NHL and NCAA Football come to mind. In the NHL, they call the central office in Canada (I think it's in Toronto) and get a decision and in college football, the refs go to a headset and talk to the replay assistant up in the booth. In both cases, it usually only takes five minutes tops. The replay procedure in baseball now is ridiculous. I was at the game with the disputed home run against the Reds this year and it took entirely too long.

 

Wanting to speed up the game is fine but installing a replay procedure like this and then making rules as stupid as the "wipe rule" is moronic and just another example as to why Selig is ruining baseball.