Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Brian Stitt

Brian's posts

Post has attachment
Westminster Dog Show! Clap clap clapclapclap clapclapcclapclap DOG SHOW!
10 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
The skating rink had finally opened, so Kerstin and I picked the first misty Friday we had to check it out. The little bit odd reason kept out the stinkos. 
Skating In Prospect Park
6 Photos - View album

And the winner for sentence I want to punch in the face today is:

"The irony that a state so vehemently protective of its right to capital punishment being the same to advance an unprecedented call for scientific review of evidence in long-decided criminal cases is lost on no one."

Oh, the irony is lost on no one, is it? So, it's unexpected for people who are vehemently protective of a right to kill guilty criminals to make sure that that they only kill people they are 100% sure are guilty? Capital punishment may be unjust, but its supporters certainly care about justice. 

Post has attachment
Well how am I supposed to know if this list is any good? I've only seen two of the movies!

Post has attachment
Part one of Inside Jersey's 30 Best Meals. Great restaurants, great photos.

Post has attachment
Here's why the umpires made the wrong decision at second base last night .... And this is why they are changing the rules

It was clear to everyone watching at home. Kozma never had the ball in his glove. Full speed, on the field, just ten feet away, the ump got the call wrong. Really wrong. I've maybe never seen a more wrong out call before. Boston manager John Farrell rightly comes out to ask what could the umpire possibly be thinking. The other umpires huddle up, which Joe Torre says is a message they have for each other that the call might be wrong. Farrell continues his appeal to one of the umpires who didn’t make the call. Eventually, all of the umpires have gathered, they talk about it and reverse the call. Good work, guys. They got the call right. Why doesn't this sort of thing happen more often? Well, because it's against the rules, that's why.

The rules concerning umpires are decidedly murky. Did you know that every call on a baseball field is final. Ump was right, no matter what he calls, how egregious the screw up was, no appeals. Rule: 9.02(a):

“Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.”

Oh, but managers can appeal. Rule 9.02(b) says they can “if there is reasonable doubt that any umpire’s decision may be in conflict with the rules.” OK, so, final, except sometimes. Usually these appeals are reserved for rules the umpire might have forgotten to enforce such as a runner going out of the basepath, interference, or another one of the more esoteric rules.

Murky. Some would say the out call was a judgment call, it’s “whether the runner is safe or out,” therefore final. Others would say it’s worthy of an appeal, because the umpire had ruled that the ball had come out during the ball transfer. Therefore it should fall under the auspices of the decision being “in conflict with the rules.” I side with the latter group, because I think the rules are kind of murky specifically to allow umpires to cast a wide net. You go John Farrell. Doubt reasonably. 

But heres one thing the rule book isn't murky on. How that appeal goes down.

Rule 9.02(b), the one that allows managers to appeal says this: 
“Such appeal shall be made only to the umpire who made the protested decision.”

So that shot of John Farrell appealing to the home plate umpire after talking to the guy who made the call, that's Farrell breaking the rules. He can't do that. Why not? Let's move on to rule 9.02(c) for an explanation:

“If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.”

It all goes back to that previous rule that all umpire decisions are final. The MLB rules don't allow for the umpires to even consider overturning a call unless the guy who made it is pretty sure he screwed it up. Joe Torre said: “When they’re going to talk about it, whether it’s overturned, the umpires sort of collapse as they did on Dana. That lets them know. That’s a sign that they have with each other.” DeMuth, the umpire that made the bad call, concurred. “I had crewmates that were giving me the signal that they were 100 percent sure that I had the wrong call.” Sorry guys. That's specifically prohibited by the rules. It’s “interfere(ing) with another umpire’s decision” before being asked to do so.

The issue then is not whether or not they got the call right (they did, clearly); it becomes whether it is justifiable for the umpires to completely ignore the rules regulating appeals to get the call right. Nothing in the rule book states that one rule is more important than another. They are all given equal weight. Of course the missed out call was much more obvious, more egregious. But that turns this whole thing into a moral dilemma, not one about the rules being properly applied. Do we ignore one rule to correct a previous mistake? Do two wrongs make a right? Should we kill one guy to save five others? 

Overturning that call at second base isn’t about properly applying the rules of baseball, it’s about making the morally right decision, which in a game of baseball comes down to placating the most people. The Red Sox and their fans would have been outraged had the call stood. Casual fans used to replay in the NFL would be baffled. Cardinals fans may grumble this morning about what precedent it sets for the series, but can’t be too upset that their undeserved lucky break was taken away. But baseball isn’t about making people happy. If it were we’d be in the midst of a Dodgers vs. Pirates World Series. 

The baseball rulebook is there to make the game fair, to provide a level playing field for unbiased competition. Bad calls happen to all teams. Bad luck happens to all teams. That’s why they play seven. That’s why they play 162. The rules are there to help everything shake out the right way at the end. What happened last night pointed out a glaring hole in the rulebook. The fact that if an umpire makes a bad call only he can decide whether he blew it is stupid. It’s a bad rule. That’s why they are changing it next year. Next year. But this year, under the current rules, the umps made two bad calls. After the bad call was made at second base, the rule-breaking appeal should have been ignored.

This is the same reason that, if it’s proven that Jon Lester did apply a foreign substance to the ball, the outcome of last night’s game should not be overturned. The rules state that if a player is caught applying foreign substances to a ball he should be kicked out and suspended, but what has happened in the game stands. Is that morally right? Is that fair? It doesn’t matter, it’s the rules. 

Certainly the MLB is happy with what happened last night at second base because it was the morally correct decision. It just wasn’t the right one. 

Link below to more quotes from the umpires about overturning the call:

Post has attachment
This little guy keeps me company at work. He's been on the file drawer of the empty desk behind me since my first day at Inside Jersey. 

Post has attachment
Kerstin and I went hiking up Bull Hill (aka Mount Taurus) this weekend.
Bull Hill
11 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
Awesome piece of artwork I saw during Open House New York today.

Post has attachment
Neil Degrasse Tyson's trolling was fun, but this is a much more interesting look at the specifics of Gravity.
Wait while more posts are being loaded