“You blew that call deliberately! Didn’t you? DIDN’T YOU???”
Yesterday I wrote about the terrible, tomato-worthy botch of a home run call by Angel Hernandez in an Oakland-Cleveland baseball game, and how as bad as it was, the rules of the game don’t permit such rules to be over-turned, and thus over-turned they must not be, lest the game’s integrity be damaged. But on the Dan Patrick radio sports show today, renowned baseball writer Peter Gammons theorized that Hernandez may have refused to credit Adam Rosales of the A’s with a home run, despite the instant replay proving to anyone with eyes that it was not a double as he had ruled, because he, like many if not all major league umpires, hates the concept of allowing instant video replay to over-rule umpire judgments.
And, of course, Hernandez has a well-earned reputation as a spiteful jerk.
Hernandez would never admit to so unprofessional an act, but I think Gammons’ speculation is fair, and also very possibly correct. The alternative is to conclude that Hernandez literally can’t see, which seems unlikely. What seems far more likely is that he and his umpiring crew decided to register a nasty and unprofessional protest over the gradually expanding trend in Major League Baseball of letting technology do better what umpires have traditionally done well.
If it could be proven that this is what in fact occurred in the A’s-Indians game—and I can’t see how it could, absent a combination of truth serum, waterboarding and threatening to hand Hernandez’s family members over to Ariel Castro—then my position in the previous post on the game would be rendered inoperative. Major League Baseball would absolutely have an obligation to overturn an umpire’s judgement call that was in fact not an honest call, but the product of bias and conflict of interest, and a deliberate desire to decide a game-changing play incorrectly to register a protest.
In such a case, the integrity of the game is maintained by rejecting the illegal call, not accepting a flawed but honest one.
___________________________
Pointer and Source: Craig Calcaterra
Ethics Alarms 
His statement to the reporter afterwards that they couldn’t see it on the camera angles available to him in the room is an out right lie as every camera angle shot by the television crews there is available to them. While I agree with your previous post that they shouldn’t start the game back up I think they need to fire this bum. He is the worse umpire in MLB. He thinks he is bigger then the game.
Following the logic and tenor of your post on this from yesterday, wouldn’t reversing the call require an explicit “bad faith” exception to the rule you cited which provides, to paraphrase Casey Stengel, “Once it’s over, it’s over?” Or was that Yogi Berra? Anyway, yesterday it sounded as if “There’s no crying in baseball.” Today, maybe there is? If anyone other than Gammons had proposed this, you would have said, “That’s immaterial. And I can’t believe an umpire would do that! And besides, this is an ethics blog!” (Okay, just kidding about the last clause.) But, firing has always been considered appropriate. For the good of the game as per your discussion yesterday, wouldn’t that still be the best result even if bad faith could be established to the satisfaction of that car dealer from Milwaukee?
I don’t see how you got that out of the post. I wrote…“[Technicalities] always seem unfair when they are enforced, but technicalities are not unfair, unless they are hidden is some way….What is ultimately unfair is randomly ignoring rules when they don’t lead to the “right” outcome, because then we never know whether the rules are going to count, or not.”
That cannot apply to where the “technicalities” of the rules are ignored and an arbiter intentionally makes a wrong call in violation of his duties and the rules. [The Rules presume the good faith of the umpires, just as our laws presume the good faith of judges, juries and law enforcement officials.] The Rules were not followed, if Hernandez saw that his call was wrong, and still refuses to change it. The first post said that baseball can’t ignore the rules when they don’t work. The second post says that umpires can’t be allowed to ignore the rules either.
Okay, YOU tell Earl Weaver, or any living manager, that umpires always enforce the rules in good faith. I’ll stand a few steps away.
Earl just died, you know.
I never said they always do it, I said that they are obligated to. Presidents aren’t supposed to lie, either.
Weaver dead is as dangerous as many a manager alive.
True.
And Gammons has absolutely nothing to do with my accepting his suggestion as a game-changing hypothetical. It never occurred to me, but his sceanrio is a material difference, changing the nature of the question. Question One: Should MLB overturn a clearly erroneous judgment call when it affects a game result. Answer: NO. Question TWO: Should MLB overturn a clearly erroneous judgment call when it is clear that the umpire did not perform his rules-dictated and contractually obligated duty and intentionally made the wrong call, for whatever reason? Answer: ABSOLUTELY.
So what’s the remedy when an umpire tosses a manager for a strictly personal reason, or widens the strike zone to speed up a game, or ejects a player for something he says from the dugout that just rankles the ump? Should MLB step in? Maybe. Would they? Heck no even though all these things could affect the outcome of a game. I just see a lot of gray here, Jack. It’s baseball. And I don’t say that as an extra-ethical consideration, I say it more as an assertion of fact, unprovable as it may be.
Where’s the gray? Tossing a manager for a strictly personal reason? Suspension, fine, discipline. Widens the strike zone to speed up a game? Fire him. Ejects a player for something he says from the dugout that just rankles the ump? Unacceptable. Don’t confuse justification with enforcement. All of these and more should be dealt with harshly. Thinks like union rules and sufficient proof get in the way, but there is no gray area. Gray area means there is a question regarding whether it is wrong or not. These are wrong, whether they can be detected or dealt with or not.
Calling a home run a double out of spite is way beyond wrong into unforgivable.
What’s your take on electronic caling of balls and strikes, akin to electronic line calls in tennis? I’m all for it. Seems to work just fine in tennis. Why not a union ump in the press box in front of a TV to review any and all calls on the field? I’m all for it.
Short of this, I don’t see baseball increasing the integrity of the application of its rules. And I don’t see them doing any of these things.
And let’s face it, baseball has always been a little like professional wrestling with the Earl Weavers and Lou Pinellas being allowed to act like idiots for the entertainment of the audience. I think “It’s BASEBALL” is germane. Maybe we should let major league players call their own games, like golf. Or sandlot.
Weaver and Pinella werent acting like idiots for the audience. They were generally pissed off at those umpires. Id bet that they werent even aware of the fans after a 20 games.
Couldn’t disagree more. Working the refs is intended to make umpires think twice before calling a play against a manager who makes them pay for a bad call—and it may work. There was no pretense in Earl’s passion, none at all.
Jack, I read your posts almost religiously. I:t’s the first time that I believe you’ve gone over the line — way over! Talk about an ethics lapse: how could you possibly believe that it is either appropriate or even ethical to make such a disgusting reference to Ariel Castro? Not just sarcastic, far from funny, and deserving of an apology to all your faithful readers. With all my best wishes, otherwise. Michael McMurphy
Is the theory that any hypothetical reference to Ariel Castro is taboo? I don’t see it; I’m sorry. The reference is to torture and persuasive threats…if I said “or put a gun to his head” after Newtown, I gather some would be offended by that.
I’m virulently anti-waterboarding and don’t believe I have to avoid using it metaphorically or ironically to prove my sincere disapproval. I don’t believe in giving bad people Voldemort status, where they must not be named, and I was only in search of a vivid descriptor. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone, especially you, as I hope you know. My imagery can be dark, and I’ll be more careful in the future, with such sensitivities, which I don’t share, in mind.
For me, too close and too much pain to use in a rather unfunny attempt at ironic, dark humor…..and I’m not that sensitive, as you know. But no, you didn’t offend me. (And we still love ya, Jack).
This is a lifetime problem for me—if I had been a disc jockey, I would have gone the way of “the Greaseman.” Thanks for the reminder.
You wouldnt have gone the way of the Greaseman, youre at least funny and orginal sometimes. He on the other hand is rarely the first and never the second. I would compare you more to Petey Greene.
This is an example of how arrogant Hernadez is.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/cubs/2001-08-07-mcmichael.htm
Perfect. And the article even mentioned Harry Caray, that venerable drunk. Jack, I just think using all your ethics expertise on baseball is, unfortunately, analogous to using a howitzer to kill a fly. The sport of Ty Cobb is just an ethics quagmire.
Dont believe all youve heard about Ty Cobb . Most of the things you hear about him were made up to sell a book.
Almost all, in fact, as a new book (either coming out or published) details. All the racist stuff, for example, is apparently libel. It’s a pretty stark example of how one bad egg journalist can wreck a reputation.