presentation and proposal to the commissioner of major league

PRESENTATION AND PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

TO OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE ARMANDO GALARRAGA'S PERFECT GAME

OF JUNE 2, 2010.

For Consideration by:

The Hon. Robert D. Manfred Jr, Commissioner of Major League Baseball

1271 Avenue of the Americas

New York, N.Y. 10020

Submitted on behalf of the best interests of Major League Baseball by:

Monmouth University’s Law and Society Class (Fall 2021)

c/o Professor Lawrence R. Jones and participating students*

Monmouth University

400 Cedar Avenue

Long Branch, N.J. 07764

*Prisca Blamon, Antonio Bulzomi, David Comack, Mark Demeno, Alexander Dyer, Sean Gill, Gabriella

Griffo, Sara Hamid, Lenien Jamir, Tyler Kendrick, Hannah Latshaw, Jayme Martini, Richard Pitts,

Michael Russ, Sabria Smith, Georgia Watkins

Photo: mlb.com/ap

1

PREFACE

In the Fall, 2021 semester at Monmouth University (Long Branch, New Jersey),

Professor Lawrence R. Jones and 16 undergraduate students spent a semester together in a

course entitled “Law and Society”. A major part of the class focused on social advocacy,

and how the spirit of rules and laws may sometimes take priority over hyper-literal

interpretations in order to promote fairness and equity.

During the course of study, the Monmouth University students analyzed the case of

former Detroit Tigers’ pitcher Armando Galarraga, who pitched one of the most famous

games in Major League history -- the 28-out perfect game of June 2, 2010 against the

Cleveland Indians. During the semester, the students were privileged to host and hear

from Mr. Galarraga as a guest speaker. Mr. Galarraga shared with the students the

inspirational story of his personal journey from Venezuela to the Major Leagues, and his

highly acclaimed response after losing credit for a perfect game which he had validly

pitched. To this day, Galarraga’s conduct is considered one of the greatest displays of

respect and honor in sports history.

The professor and 16 students from Monmouth University’s Fall, 2021 Law and

Society class together submit this presentation to the Honorable Commissioner of Major

League Baseball (MLB). The enclosed analysis sets forth in detail 10 specific reasons why

MLB can finally add the name of Armando Galarraga in its official record of honored

athletes who have pitched a perfect game in Major League Baseball, along with a detailed

positive footnote explaining the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances surrounding

this unprecedented case. We ask that the Commissioner review these points, and

reconsider and review the Galarraga case with fresh eyes in the best interests of the game.

2

This submission consists of the following sections:

I) INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL (page 4)

IA) THE “WHAT IF ” FACTOR: WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE FEAR OF BREAKING WITH TRADITION

OVERPOWERS FAIRNESS AND EQUITY (page 4)

IB) POSITION OF NATIONAL BASEBALL HALL OF FAME (page 8)

IC) THE “ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST” BASEBALL DOCTRINE:

SUPPORTING R.P. McMURPHY’S POSITION OVER NURSE RATCHED’S POSITION (page 19)

II) PROPOSED ACTION: HOW THE COMMISSIONER CAN “DO THE RIGHT THING” (page 23)

III) 10 POINTS OF EQUITY AND POLICY SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ACTION BY

THE COMMISSIONER TO “DO THE RIGHT THING” (page 29)

1) THE COMMISSIONER FUNCTIONS AS CHANCELLOR OVER MAJOR LEAGUE

BASEBALL, AND AS SUCH MAY MAKE DECISONS BASED UPON COURT-

HONORED EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES OF REASON AND FAIRNESS

IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (page 29)

2) THE “EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” PRINCIPLE:

WHY THE GALARRAGA CASE STANDS ALONE IN BASEBALL HISTORY (page 35)

3) THE GEORGE BRETT “PINE TAR” GAME (1983): THERE IS EXISTING MLB PRECEDENT FOR

REVERSING A CALL IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (page 38)

4) THE HARVEY HADDIX PRECEDENT (1991) : MLB’S RETROACTIVE RECONSIDERATION

OF A PITCHER’S “PERFECT GAME” STATUS DECADES AFTER THE FACT (page 44)

5) THE YU DARVISH PRECEDENT (2014): MLB ‘S ALTERING OF BASEBALL HISTORY BY

RETROACTIVELY CHANGING OFFICIAL’S CALL MADE DURING ONGOING NO-HITTER (page 50)

6) APPLES vs ORANGES: MAJOR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE GALARRAGA GAME AND TWO

OTHER PERFECT GAMES LOST CONTROVERSIALLY ON THE 27

th

BATTER (page 54)

7A) the 1908 Hooks Wiltse Game

7B) the 1972 Milt Pappas Game

7) THE “DENKINGER DOCTRINE”: WHY THE “STRATEGIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FLOW OF THE

GAME” ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY IN THE GALARRAGA CASE (page 61)

8) THE ROGER MARIS DOCTRINE: MLB MUST NOT WAIT TOO LONG TO FINALLY “DO THE

RIGHT THING” (page 67)

9) IN RECONSIDERING THE GALARRAGA CASE, MLB HAS A HISTORIC

OPPORTUNITY TO SOCIALLY AND CONSTRUCTIVELY INFLUENCE MILLIONS OF

SPORTS FANS BY DEMONSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS IN SPORTS AND IN LIFE (page 74)

4

I) INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL

The “What If ” Factor:

When Administrative Fear of Breaking with Tradition

Overpowers Fairness and Equity

For over 150 years, baseball has played a highly significant role in American culture.

The public’s love affair with the National Pastime is filled with timeless events, such as

Babe Ruth “calling his shot” in the 1932 World Series, Joe DiMaggio hitting in 56 straight

games in 1941, and Jackie Robinson joining Major League Baseball in 1947 and winning the

Most Valuable Player Award in 1949. In 1974, Hank Aaron’s chasing and eclipsing of

Babe Ruth’s career home record was a journey which transfixed an entire country.

Ruth, DiMaggio, Robinson and Aaron are among the most elite players in baseball

history. One of the most inspiring aspects of the sport , however, is that on any given day,

even a so-called “average” or “unknown” player can potentially achieve a feat of greatness

deserving of official honor and a permanent place in the record books. Perhaps the

greatest example of such a circumstance was the “perfect game” pitched by Don Larsen in

the 1956 World Series. At the time, Larsen was a fairly undistinguished pitcher, with a

lifetime losing record.

1

However, on October 8, 1956, Larsen found himself playing in the

World Series. As a member of the New York Yankees, Larsen then proceeded to pitch a

“perfect game” against the Brooklyn Dodgers.

A “perfect game” is arguably the most rare , distinguished, and historic single game

accomplishment any pitcher can hope to achieve: 27 batters up and 27 batters down. The

fact that Don Larsen was not a Hall of Fame pitcher -- or even an All-Star pitcher -- further

1

Don Larsen’s career regular season record as of the time of his 1956 World Series perfect game was 30 wins and 40

losses. See Baseball Reference, Don Larsen, available at www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/larsedo01.shtml (last

visited December 1, 2021).

5

underscores his immortal achievement as a symbol to all fans that in baseball and in life,

anything is possible with hard work , self-belief and opportunity.

On June 2, 2010, Armando Galarraga was a previously unheralded pitcher from

Venezuela. With relatively limited major league experience, he was called into action by

the Detroit Tigers to pitch against the Cleveland Indians. Incredibly, Galarraga proceeded

to retire the first 26 batters he faced, leaving him only one out away from achieving a

perfect game and baseball immortality. With two outs in the ninth inning, the 27

th

batter -

- a rookie with two weeks’ experience named Jason Donald

2

-- hit an infield ground ball

and was thrown out at first base by at least a full step. However, in one of the most well-

known umpiring calls in the history of Major League Baseball, the first base umpire, Jim

Joyce, erroneously called the 27

th

batter, Jason Donald, safe at first base when he was

clearly out beyond a reasonable doubt. As the umpire’s mistaken call was rendered on

what would have been the final play of the game, the officiating error denied Armando

Galarraga official credit for becoming only the 21

st

pitcher in the long and illustrious

history of Major League Baseball to pitch a perfect game.

Shortly after the game ended, Joyce tearfully and publicly admitted that his call was

erroneous, and that the batter had in fact been thrown out at first base.

3

Moreover, the

batter, Jason Donald, also stipulated that he was out.

4

,

5

Accordingly, in an unprecedented

2

Jason Donald’s first major league game was May 18, 2010. See Baseball Reference, Jason Donald, available at

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=donalja01&year=2010 (last visited December 1, 2021)

3

“To this day, honest to God, I don’t know how it happened,” Joyce said. “I was getting ready to call out, and something

happened and I came up safe. I can’t give you an answer on that. I just had safe. That is what came out.” Joel Sherman,

How Imperfect Game Changed Much More than the lives of Armando Galarraga, Jim Joyce, NY Post, (June, 2, 2020), available

at: https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/imperfect-game-changed-more-than-armando-galarraga-jim-joyce/ (last visited

December 1, 2021).

4

Chris Gentilviso, Quotes: Jason Donald on Armando Galarraga’s Blown Perfect Game (“Yeah I was out”), Time, June 3,

2010, available at https://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/03/jason-donald-on-his-ground-ball-and-blown-perfect-game-

call/ (last visited December 1, 2021).

5

Ian Casselberry, Jason Donald Knows He was Out in Armando Galarraga’s Near –Perfect Game, SB Nation, June 2, 2011,

available at https://detroit.sbnation.com/detroit-tigers/2011/6/2/2203444/jason-donald-knows-he-was-out-in-

armando-galarragas-almost-perfect, last visited December 1, 2021. ("He beat me," Donald said over the telephone

Wednesday. "He had the angle. The play happened right in front of me. I knew I was out immediately.")

6

circumstance in baseball history concerning an on--field call, the principal players from

both teams and the field umpire who made the call all publicly agreed that the call was in

fact wrong, and that the batter was out rather than safe, and that Galarraga had in reality

undisputedly retired Donald and achieved the 27

th

out of a perfect game. In turn,

Galarraga publicly praised Umpire Joyce for his integrity and professionalism under the

circumstances.

The sports world lauded both Galarraga for his graciousness toward Joyce, and Joyce

for his honesty and leadership in publicly admitting his error and taking full responsibility

for his mistake. Further, the then-Commissioner of Major League Baseball, Bud Selig,

exalted both Galarraga and Joyce for their handling of the situation. Said Selig:

"The dignity and class of the entire Detroit Tigers organization under

such circumstances were truly admirable and embodied good

sportsmanship of the highest order," Selig said. "[Galarraga] and Detroit

manager Jim Leyland are to be commended for their handling of a very

difficult situation. . . . . I also applaud the courage of umpire Jim Joyce to

address this unfortunate situation honestly and directly. Jim's candor

illustrates why he has earned the respect of on-field personnel throughout

his accomplished career in the Major Leagues since 1989.”

6

In addition to praising Galarraga and Joyce for handling the situation professionally,

Commissioner Selig further vowed to review the umpiring system and the expanded use

of instant replay. Stated the Commissioner: "While the human element has always been

an integral part of baseball, it is vital that mistakes on the field be addressed."

7

The

6

ESPN, Selig Won’t Reverse Call (June 3, 2010) available at https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=5248118

(last visited December 1, 2021).

7

Ibid.

7

Commissioner also acknowledged that “there is no dispute that last night’s game should

have ended differently.”

8

Notwithstanding the then-Commissioner’s words of praise and the launching of a

movement to expand the use of instant replay into Major League Baseball

9

, MLB would not

reverse the undisputed erroneous call, or recognize Galarraga’s achievement as a perfect

game, or otherwise include Galarraga in the record books to join the honored ranks of

those very few select pitchers who previously achieved a perfect game.

10

Unofficial reports

stated that Umpire Joyce himself sought unsuccessfully for MLB to reverse the call.

11

Further, official representatives of state and federal government became involved.

Michigan lawmakers began lobbying Commissioner Selig to reverse the call and to

officially recognize Galarraga for having thrown a perfect game. Michigan Governor

Jennifer Granholm issued a proclamation declaring that Galarraga had indeed pitched a

perfect game, while U.S. Representative John D. Dingell said that he would introduce a

Congressional resolution asking Major League Baseball to recognize the error in the call

and issue a correction. U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, in a letter to Selig

obtained by ESPN.com's Amy K. Nelson, asked Commissioner Selig to recognize Galarraga’s

accomplishment as a perfect game, saying "only the truth will uphold and honor the

integrity of the game; and the truth is that this game was perfect."

12

Senator Debbie

8

Bradley Blackburn and Lee Ferran, MLB Will Not Reverse Call That Cost Armando Galarraga Perfect Game, (June 3,

2010) available at https://abcnews.go.com/WN/bad-call-reviewed-major-league-baseball-ump-

admits/story?id=10815336 (last visited December 1, 2021)

9

Ibid. Ultimately, in part because of the Galarraga case, MLB did expand the use of instant replay for reviewing calls ,

which such expanded use taking effect in of 2014. See ESPN: MLB to Expand Instant Replay in 2014 (August 15, 2013);

available at https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/9570618/mlb-expands-instant-replay-2014-include-manager-

video-challenges (last visited December 1, 2021)

10

See ESPN, Selig Won’t Reverse Call (June 3, 2010) available at:https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=5248118

(last visited December, 2021). “A baseball official familiar with the decision confirmed to The Associated Press that the

call was not being reversed. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because that element was not included in Selig's

statement”.

11

There are unofficial reports that Joyce himself sought unsuccessfully to have MLB reverse his call and award Galarraga

a perfect game. Cody Stavenhagen, Beyond Perfect: Armando Galaragga, 10 years after the Call”, The Athletic ( May 2020),

available at https://theathletic.com/1722128/2020/05/12/beyond-perfect-armando-galarraga-10-years-after-the-call/

(last visited December 1, 2021).

12

See ESPN, Selig Won’t Reverse Call (June 3, 2010) available at:https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=5248118

(last visited December, 2021).

8

Stabenow issued a statement requesting that Commissioner Selig overturn the call. Stated

Stabenew, "Last night's performance deserves its place in the record books. It is clear that

Commissioner Selig should make an exception in this case and invoke the 'best interests of

the game clause' to reflect Armando Galarraga's perfect game for the Detroit Tigers."

13

Even the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs

14

publicly commented that he hoped

that Major League baseball would officially recognize the pitcher’s perfect game under

such extraordinary circumstances

Major League Baseball, however, did not correct the call, or take any remedial action

whatsoever to recognize Galarraga’s achievement as a perfect game – not even with an

explanatory historical footnote of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances

involved. Instead, MLB chose not to include Galarraga on its official record of pitchers

who pitched a perfect game. To this day, MLB’s official records continue to exclude

Armando Galarraga from the official list of pitchers who have earned and achieved this

historic feat.

15

Position of National Baseball Hall of Fame

While MLB would not include Galarraga on the official list of perfect game pitchers, the

National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York (an entity independent of Major

League Baseball) took its own action to honor both Galarraga and Joyce, specifically by

13

Paul Kane, Senator takes on bad call on Galarraga Perfect Game, Washington Post (June 3, 2010), available at

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/senator--takes-on-bad-call-on.html (last visited December 1, 2021).

14

See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-

632010

15

See Appendix A attached: The Elias Book of Baseball Records (2020), page 68, Founded in 1913, The Elias Sports Bureau is the Official

Statistician for Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, Women’s National Basketball

Association, Major League Soccer, NBA G League and the PGA Championship. Elias also provides support to most of the major sports

television broadcasters. https://www.esb.com/.Elias provides content, research and data support to most of the major sports television

broadcasts. Elias has worked with dozens of broadcasters, national and local, for more than 35 years on MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL,

MLS, and WNBA telecasts.

9

focusing on how their honorable actions jointly transcended baseball itself. Housed in a

special display at Cooperstown, the following portion of the display was officially authored

by John Odell, the official curator of history and research at the National Baseball Hall of

Fame and Museum:

The play was at first base that night was close, but replays showed that first base

umpire Jim Joyce’s call – SAFE! – was emphatic, textbook…and incorrect. Galarraga’s

own reaction changed rapidly from exultation to shock; then a half-smile of disbelief

crept across his face. He knew Donald was out, but the umpire closest to the play had

called him safe. Detroit manager Jim Leyland flew out of his dugout to protest, but the

rules of baseball – prior to the implementation of instant replay in 2014 – were clear:

The judgment call of an umpire was final, and there was no appeal. Neither Galarraga

nor Leyland could change that. Amazingly, Galarraga then did what coaches so easily

advise but which is so hard to do. He shook it off. He calmly climbed the mound,

proceeded to get what he knew was the 28th straight out of the game, took the win, and

went to the locker room. Umpire Joyce also entered his locker room, asked to have a

tape of the play cued up, and then watched himself make the wrong call. He was

stunned. “I missed it from here to that wall,” he would later state. In truth, it was closer

than that, but an umpire’s world is black and white, right and wrong; there are no

shades of gray.

Joyce turned the sports world on its head by immediately, personally apologizing to

Galarraga in front of the press. . . . .“It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked it,”

Joyce tearfully admitted. “I just cost that kid a perfect game.” Cementing his apology,

Joyce further acknowledged that that he had robbed Galarraga of baseball immortality,

and expressed sorrow for keeping the pitcher’s name out of the record books. In an age

when apologies are flack-scripted press releases expressing a vague “regret to anyone

who might have been offended,” Joyce showed what a real apology was. Galarraga, in an

example of sportsmanship that reverberated far beyond the sports world, gracefully

accepted the apology and embraced the umpire during the postgame talk. “I know

nobody’s perfect. What are you going to do?” asked Galarraga rhetorically.

From the Hall’s perspective, the story of this game was different from the two previous

games. If the story was different, then perhaps the artifacts ought to be different, as

well. . . . .One thing was certain: By their actions, Joyce and Galarraga had elevated

themselves and the game above the usual chatter. So had Leyland, who called Joyce “a

class guy,” and said, in all honesty, that it was all “part of the human element of the

game.” By their words and actions, the three men had transformed the atmosphere

surrounding the contest. . . .The whole story, of course, was not over. Jim Joyce was

scheduled to call the game at the plate the following day. Offered a chance to skip his

turn in the rotation, Joyce declined. Umpiring is a tough profession, and those in it do

not shirk from tough assignments.

10

Umpires also know that managers can use the pregame ritual of handing in the lineup

as an opportunity to rehash the previous game’s events. Some managers, like Hall of

Famer Earl Weaver, have even been ejected before a game started. Against that

backdrop, Jim Joyce walked to the plate the following day. Rather than coming himself,

manager Jim Leyland sent Galarraga out to the plate with the lineup. There, the pitcher

and umpire exchanged a handshake, and Joyce patted Galarraga on the shoulder. The

message was clear: Each respected the other, and both respected the game.

Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Bud Selig stated that he would not overturn Jim

Joyce’s call – the imperfect-perfect game, as some dubbed it, would stand. The record

books will forever identify it as a one-hitter; but for everyone involved, the game was

unique, teaching us all a little more about excellence and sportsmanship.

16

While Galarraga handled the erroneous call in a historically and universally acclaimed

manner, it goes without saying that any reasonable hard-working, professional athlete in

his shoes may likely experience natural human frustration from being permanently

excluded from Major League baseball’s list of perfect game pitchers under such exceptional

and extraordinary circumstances. Further, Umpire Joyce may assumedly suffer equal

ongoing frustration, since he was and is a highly respected professional who made an

innocent, split second mistake at the time and then contemporaneously and publicly

acknowledged his error in a highly honorable fashion. Such error does not -- and should

not – negatively define Joyce’s lengthy and brilliant career as an esteemed MLB baseball

official. Yet, without reasonable remedial action by MLB to address the situation, the “28-

out perfect game” unfairly remains an ongoing obstruction to Joyce’s well-earned, positive

and respected legacy.

The “What If” Factor: An Obstacle to Reason, Fairness and Equity

Generally, when an individual or entity with discretion to make an important decision

is confronted with a factually unprecedented situation, it may sometimes be difficult and

challenging for that person or entity to act. Unfortunately, it may at times be easier for

some decision-makers to avoid conflict, or not act at all, due to fear of perceived

16

John Odell, Perfect Sportsman, National Baseball Hall of Fame Official website, available at https://baseballhall.org/perfect-

sportsmen (last visited December 1, 2021)

11

“negatives” that an otherwise reasonable and unprecedented decision may potentially

trigger. This fear, however, can often lead to very unjust, unfair and unreasonable results.

Since 2010, many have theorized that the reason why MLB initially declined to reverse

the admittedly erroneous call by Umpire Joyce -- and why it has continued to exclude

Galarraga from official recognition as a perfect game pitcher under such exceptional and

extraordinary circumstances -- was a genuine fear by MLB’s then-leadership of the “what

if” factor. In our society, the “what if ” factor occurs when a governing person or

organization with decision-making authority to make a reasonable decision -- in order to

remedy an injustice in a highly fact-sensitive situation -- nonetheless administratively

declines or refuses to do so, due to fear or fright over how such a decision might, maybe,

someday, somehow possibly cause a ripple effect of future applications regarding past or

future cases totally unrelated to the present one. For example, a decision-maker paralyzed

by concerns over the “what if” factor may refuse or avoid taking otherwise reasonable and

equitable action on a present matter deserving of review and intervention based on one or

more of the following “concerns”:

“What if” an administrative action or decision which deviates from tradition . . ..

A) “ may possibly ‘open up the floodgates’ to more challenges. . .”

B) “ . . . may take us all down a “slippery slope....”

C) “ may pry open up a “can of worms...”

D) “may open a “Pandora’s Box...” .

With specific reference to the Galarraga case, this presentation and analysis sets forth

in detail (a) why such general fears of a domino effect are wholly unreasonable and

unjustifiable in this specific matter, and (b) why such general fears in this case serve to

elevate injustice over fairness in a manner which is contrary to the entire spirit of the game

and the best interests of baseball itself. In fact, the Galarraga case provides a classic

example of the clear inequity which may occur when general rules and policies are

applied without any genuine fact-specific analysis, or due consideration of any

extenuating, exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which may render the

12

mechanical application of such “general” rules and policies inequitable and contrary to

human reason and common sense in a particular circumstance.

Put another way, when the very rationale for a rule is non-applicable in a particular

fact-sensitive situation, it makes little logical sense to nonetheless automatically apply

that rule without further analysis solely for the purpose of avoiding fear of possible future

“slippery slopes”. Generalized fears over “opening cans of worms,” and what might,

maybe, possibly, someday happen in other presently non-existent applications and

situations, cannot and should not reasonably be permitted to override a logical and

legitimate analysis of the actual exceptional and extraordinary facts such as in the

Galarraga case, which are unparalleled in the 150+ year history of Major League Baseball.

Fear, fright and the “what if” doctrine should never be permitted to cripple and

paralyze the ability of an individual or entity with the authority to “right a wrong” from

doing so. Otherwise, unjust and unequitable consequences can arise. Armando Galarraga’s

2010 game is an exemplification of a clear social wrong that can be adequately amended by

Major League Baseball, and specifically by the Commissioner. In this case, the present

Commissioner, Rob Manfred, has the authority and discretion to revisit, reconsider and

review anew the Galarraga matter in 2022, and act to support fairness and justice.

Nonetheless, if MLB (or any other governing body, organization or person with

decision-making authority) chooses to perseverate on all the negative possible “what ifs”,

then in the name of balance and “equal time”, then it is fair to reciprocally consider several

positive “what ifs” as well, such as:

A) What if the Commissioner’s taking of remedial action to rectify the stipulated

erroneous call and recognize Gallaraga’s perfect game does not open the floodgates

to countless other appeals to the detriment of Major League Baseball;

B) What if Major League Baseball’s official recognition of Galarraga as a perfect

game pitcher under the exceptional and extraordinary fact of this case draws the

respect and admiration of millions of fans for MLB “doing the right thing” by

elevating human reason and empathy over cold inflexibility, and finally paying honor

and respect to Galarraga’s hard earned historic achievement;

13

C) What if Major League Baseball symbolically demonstrates by its actions that

it is socially and culturally more important to honor the truth of what actually

occurred – both on the ball field and in life itself – rather than artificially paying

ongoing deference to a clear and convincing mistake which MLB’s own agent,

representative and official – the very umpire who made the call – publicly ,

honorably, unequivocally and immediately announced was incorrect in a

historically heartfelt manner;

D) What if such support by MLB under this exceptional and extraordinary

circumstance, helps uplift the public and demonstrates that even in baseball, there

are sometimes more important issues than strict hyper-technical compliance with

“tradition” based upon a general fear of what “slippery slope” might, maybe, possibly,

someday arise;

E) What if MLB’s taking of remedial action in 2021 itself creates a historic

symbolic and invaluable message for millions of children and adults alike throughout

the world – that it is never too late to do what is right, and to honor persons for

achievements earned through self-belief, hard work, persistence and perseverance;

F) What if MLB’s actions help finally free both Galaragga and Joyce from a

lifetime of their own “what ifs”, and also help create for millions of fans one of the

most potentially uplifting and inspiring moments in baseball history through a

ceremony at first base, in Comerica Park, Detroit Michigan in 2022 , where the MLB

Commissioner and Umpire Joyce present Galaragga with an official MLB

proclamation recognizing and including Galaragga on the official MLB list of perfect

game pitchers for all posterity, while joined by other surviving Major League

pitchers* who have also pitched a perfect game

17

The “what ifs” in this circumstance are considerably more positive than negative. In

fact, the Commissioner may find that granting Galarraga's “perfect game” title will not only

powerfully affect Galarraga and Joyce’s lives and legacies, but it may also have a similar

impact on how our nation presently views Major League Baseball itself.

One’s ability to act in a fair manner cannot be chained and shackled by the “what if”

factor. The words ``what” and “if” are two words that, separately, are unambiguous.

17

As of the date of this submission and analysis, Major League Baseball’s surviving perfect game pitchers include

Sandy Koufax, Len Barker, Mike Witt, Tom Browning, Dennis Martinez, Kenny Rogers, David Wells, David Cone,

Randy Johnson, Mark Buerhle, Dallas Braden, Philip Humber, Matt Cain, and Felix Hernandez.

14

However, when one puts them together, this simple two-word phrase often creates a slew

of anxiety for different situations. “What if'' I don’t get the job? “What if” I fail my test?

“What if'' MLB finally recognizes Galarraga for pitching a perfect game? While the

reasoning behind MLB’s declining recognition of Galarraga's perfect game after all these

years may be because of the “what ifs”, there are in fact unknowns and uncertainties in all

of Life's challenges.

For years, the public has largely supported official recognition of Galarraga’s

accomplishment and his inclusion on MLB’s historical list of perfect game pitchers, not out

of sentiment, but out of logic, reason, and basic fairness. Galarraga fairly earned a

perfect game the very moment his foot touched first base a full step ahead of the base

runner Donald. Nobody -- including the Commissioner or any other any official connected

with Major League Baseball -- has ever for one second contended that the runner was

actually safe, or even that the play was “too close to call” and therefore could reasonably

“go either way.” The batter was undeniably put out by Galarraga, and the undisputed

incorrectness of the “official” call in such a historic moment is exactly why MLB’s

continued denial of recognition of Galarraga’s achievement under such exceptional and

extraordinary circumstances is extremely unfair and unjust.

While adhering to an umpire’s ruling is historically important, to strictly do so in

this situation -- where the umpire himself declared the same day that his call was

completely wrong and cost the pitcher a perfect game -- drastically defies common sense.

On June 2, 2010, history happened, and should not be denied based on stipulated clear

human error by MLB’s own official. A perfect game is a very special event which rarely

occurs, but truly did occur on June 2, 2010.

For the best interests and the spirit of the sport itself, Major League Baseball can serve

as a societal example by including Armando Galarraga on its official historical record of

"perfect game" pitchers. Administrators must be willing to think outside the box and

depart from tradition to promote fairness, and sportsmanship. As members of society, we

value honesty and justice as strong character and societal traits. Moreover, the positive

15

“what ifs” are consistent with and supportive of the best interests of baseball, the spirit of

the game, and the potential of Major League Baseball to serve as a shining example of fair

play and honor for genuine, hard-earned athletic achievements. With the traits of honesty,

fairness, and sportsmanship at the heart of Major League Baseball and society, the

Commissioner has the power to honor and recognize Armando Galarraga for his perfect

game of June 2, 2010. Moreover, as discussed herein, the historical inclusion of Armando

Galarraga in his rightfully earned place on the list of perfect game pitchers can be done in a

way which not only maintains the stability of record-keeping, but simultaneously promotes

honesty, fairness, equity, and honor of historic athletic achievements at the very same time.

For certain, Major League Baseball’s history is one filled with tradition. As a result,

there is often initial resistance to changes in the sport of any kind whatsoever. For

example, at different times in history , there were staunch opponents of other proposed

breaks from “tradition”, and who essentially panicked over developments such as

creation of the designated hitter (DH) rule, the re-alignment of divisions, the expansion of

post season play, and the scheduling of regular season interleague games. Ultimately, all

of these changes took place successfully, and the opposing “what ifs’” proved to be

overreactions based upon unreasonably magnified fears of change and, for some people, a

rigid refusal or inability to think and act “outside of the box” of past tradition and routine.

Tradition and consistency have important places in baseball. Yet, when considering

the purpose and spirit of a “no challenging an umpire’s call” rule and tradition, logic and

reason tell us that the purpose of the tradition regarding the inability to challenge an

umpire’s call was to prevent games from being constantly weighed down by multiple

challenges from managers, coaches and players to an umpire’s reasonable discretion.

There is nothing in baseball history, however, which remotely supports an automatic

conclusion that the tradition was somehow meant to rigidly and irrevocably apply in a

highly unprecedented case where both teams and the umpire all agree that the on-field call

was wrong as a result of inadvertent human error. Further, there is nothing in the

language or spirit of the Rules, or the history of the game itself, which warrants or

supports such an unreasonable “words over logic,” “cart leading the horse”, hyper-literal

16

interpretation of the rules or conclusion in such unprecedented circumstances, or that a

remedial correcting of the call under such fact-sensitive circumstances in order to

preserve the legitimacy of a pitcher’s otherwise validly earned perfect game would

somehow violate the spirit and purpose of the rule itself. As Judge Learned

Hand famously noted, “[t]here is no surer way to misread any document than to read it

literally.” Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608, 624 (2d Cir. 1944) (concurring opinion), aff'd

sub nom., Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 244, 65 S.Ct. 605, 89 L.Ed. 921 (1945). This

concept applies to over-literal translations of written rules as well, such as the specific

baseball rules at issue in this matter and the spirit of such rules vs an ultra-technical and

unreasonable interpretation under the specific facts of this case. Baseball can and should

be a game of rationality and logic, not of misapplied principles and arbitrary inflexibility.

The integrity of the sport should not be beholden to inflexible interpretation of rules over

reason, such as “no overriding an umpire’s call, ever, even when the umpire agrees he was

wrong and regardless of actual exceptional and extraordinary circumstances”. Such an

interpretation can create or perpetuate a manifest injustice in a case such as the present

one.

While there may presently be no direct precedent for changing an umpire’s call years

after the fact, there is truly no direct precedent for the type of situation presented in the

Galarraga case either. The Galarraga case is one of first impression. To this day, it has

been frequently identified in the media with labels such as “the most heartbreaking call in

MLB history,”

18

“the most famous imperfect game in history,”

19

and “debatably one of the

worst calls in the history of baseball.”

20

Yet, in baseball and in life, it is still better for

18

Michael Ceramin, The Most Heartbreaking Call in MLB History, Bleacher Nation, May 13, 2020, available at

https://www.bleachernation.com/baseballisfun/2020/05/13/ten-years-later-galarraga-wants-the-most-heartbreaking-

call-in-mlb-history-reversed-he-wants-his-perfect-game/ (last visited December 1, 2021)

19

See NPR, The Most Famous Imperfect Game in history, June 3, 2010, available

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127408413, (last visited December 1, 2021)

20

See Abram Erikson, Instant Replay: The Good the Bad and the Unbelievable, Millennial Influx, available at

https://www.millennialinflux.com/instant-replay-the-good-the-bad-and-the-unbelievable/,

(last visited December 1, 2021)

17

fairness to come late than never. It is now over a decade since the Galarraga game of

June 2, 2010. Both Galarraga and Joyce have become enduring role models and symbols of

good sportsmanship in the way they mutually handled the matter. Nonetheless, the fact

that MLB has not yet recognized Galarraga’s true achievement in the official record results

in an ongoing and enduring wrong to both Galarraga and Joyce that has gone unchecked

for over a decade. For Galarraga, he has had to live with the frustration of having achieved

such a monumental feat, only to be denied his rightful place in the record book alongside of

the very few other major league perfect game pitchers. For Umpire Joyce, the sentence has

likely been worse, in having to endure the professional and personal pain of having

innocently erred in such a fashion as to cost Galarraga appropriate recognition of his hard-

earned, historical pitching achievement. Beyond their joint graciousness under fire, both

Galarraga and Joyce have earned and finally deserve a reprieve. The Commissioner and

Major League Baseball can in fact fairly grant such a reprieve in a manner which promotes

equity, fairness and historic sportsmanship in a highly appropriate and historical manner.

Ironically, MLB has a long-standing policy of attempting to ensure against human

officiating errors in special games. For example, during post-season games and All-Star

games, MLB adds two additional umpires to the field, positioned along the left and

right foul lines in the outfield.

21

Further, shortly after the Galarraga game, MLB ramped

up efforts to increase the role of instant replay for review certain calls, with such efforts

culminating in the implementation of expanded instant replay as of 2014. Accordingly,

had the Galarraga game been played in 2014 rather than 2010, the umpire’s erroneous

call would have been corrected on the spot in real time, and Galarraga would have been

celebrating his perfect game with his teammates rather than being excluded from MLB’s

official record of perfect game pitchers.

21

Baseball Reference, available at

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Umpire#:~:text=During%20the%20All- (last visited December 1, 2021)

18

Even though instant replay was not available in 2010, it is very available in 2022 as

further evidence to corroborate what seemingly everyone most closely associated with

the play has been saying from Day One: The umpire’s call was erroneous on the final out of

a perfect game. Thus, the tape provides even further reason for MLB to retroactively

reconsider adding Galarraga to MLB’s list of perfect game pitchers under the exceptional

and extraordinary circumstances of this case.

Separate from the issue of the available videotape is the often-overlooked, additional

point that Major League umpires actually serve as official representatives of Major League

Baseball during games. Pursuant to MLB’s Rule 8.01, “each umpire is the representative of

the league and of professional baseball.”

22

The Rule Book further instructs umpires that

“you are the only official representative of baseball on the ball field.”

23

Pursuant to the

Restatement of the Law on Agency (3

rd

edition., para 1.01, 2006), agency is the fiduciary

relationship that arises when one person (a 'principal') manifests assent to another person

(an “agent”) that the agent shall act on the principal's behalf and subject to the principal's

control, and the agent manifests or otherwise consents so to act. Under the doctrine of

agency, a principal is responsible for the actions for its agents.

Hence, if the Commissioner finds that one of its agents made an admittedly wrong call

of historic proportions, the Commissioner has the authority and ability to reject

continued administrative inflexibility and to finally correct the error of its agent in the

manner proposed in this presentation. Moreover, administrative inflexibility carries with it

an unnecessary and unreasonable disregard of the fact that in baseball and in life, there is

always the chance of unpredictable, exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which

22

Baseball Rule 8.01(b), Official Baseball Rules (2019 edition), page 95 , available at

https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/ub08blsefk8wkkd2oemz.pdf

(last visited December 1, 2021).

23

Official Baseball Rules (2019 edition), page 100, “General Instructions to Umpires, “You Are the Only Official

Representative of Baseball on the Ball Field.” available at

https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/ub08blsefk8wkkd2oemz.pdf

(last visited December 1, 2021).

19

genuinely call out for logical and intelligent consideration of exceptions rather than

unnecessary rigidity. Every rule is designed to promote fairness and justice, not to stifle

and suffocate these goals irrespective of the circumstances.

The “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” Baseball Doctrine:

Supporting R.P. McMurphy’s Position over Nurse Ratched’s Position

This submission contains a 10-point analysis providing legal, social, and historical

support for present action by the Commissioner of Major league Baseball , which will not

“open the floodgates” in any manner. As a backdrop to this presentation, however, the

undersigned further respectfully ask the Commissioner to first carefully reflect upon the

fact that Baseball has been called “The Great American Pastime” for good reason. The sport

has historically been held dear to the hearts of people in the United States because it

highlights what we believe is important. Baseball is not just significant on the field, but in

other aspects of American life as well.

Countless media outlets such as movies, tv shows, and even songs have been written

about baseball and highlight its importance in people’s lives. A prime example of this is

movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, in which the main character is in an oppressive

situation, but finds baseball as an outlet for joy and hope. “Cuckoo’s Nest” contains one of

the most famous scenes in American film history, i.e., the “World Series” scene.

Throughout the movie, Jack Nicholson’s character, patient R.P. McMurphy, and Louise

Fletcher’s character, Nurse Ratched struggle over interpretation of administrative “rules.”

Nurse Ratched is, at her core, an extreme bureaucrat. She runs the psychiatric ward where

McMurphy has been committed with strict literal enforcement of the “rules”. During his

stay, McMurphy asks for permission from Nurse Ratched to deviate from her

administrative traditions, and to simply allow the patients to watch the 1963 World

Series Game on television. Due to an arbitrary rule, Nurse Ratched refuses and does not

allow McMurphy or the other patients to watch the game. Despite the importance of the

game, Nurse Ratched declines to turn on the television set. Determined to watch the game,

20

McMurphy convinces Nurse Ratched to allow the patients to “take a vote” on turning on

the game. Going around the ward, he is able to rouse enough patients to vote to watch the

game. Although ultimately the patients vote to watch the game, Nurse Ratched insists the

conclusion of the vote is void because the vote ran past the meeting time. She also finds

other reasons and rules to void the vote. Rather than being defeated, McMurphy ignites

excitement within the patients as he fictitiously speculates and broadcasts the World Series

game in front of a turned-off television. Although McMurphy fails to persuade the

bureaucratic Nurse Ratched to turn on the tv set and allow the patients to watch the

baseball game, the scenario still signifies a win for him. The World Series game may not

have been playing on the tv set, but McMurphy is able to make the patients feel like they

are watching the game. For a moment, the patients are not in a gloomy hospital ward, but

rather at a baseball game, enjoying themselves all together. At this moment, the beauty of

baseball is represented.

Millions of movie fans who watch this movie are predictably offended by Nurse

Ratched ‘s unbending, unyielding administrative actions and lack of reasoning. What

makes the scene so powerful and memorable, however, is McMurphy’s response to Nurse

Ratched’s strict refusal to simply turn on the television and allow the patients to just watch

the game. Instead of sulking away beaten and defeated, McMurphy refuses to let

bureaucracy break his spirit, and proceeds to ignite the patients’ energy and joy by

feverishly yelling a fictitious broadcast of the World Series game in front of a turned-off

television set. As the patients go wild, McMurphy’s narrative rises to a loud crescendo of

passionate opposition to heartless bureaucrats everywhere. Shouts McMurphy:

. . . Koufax kicks. He delivers. It's up the middle! It’s a base hit! Richardson's rounding

first! He's going for second! The ball's into deep right center! Davidson, over in the

corner, cuts the ball off! Here comes the throw. Richardson's around the dirt! He

slides, he's in there! He's safe! It's a double! He's in there, Martini! Look at

Richardson, he's on second base! Koufax is in big . . . trouble! Big trouble, baby!" . . .

"All right, here's Tresh. He's the next batter! Tresh looks in. Koufax … Koufax gets the

sign from Roseboro! He kicks once, he pumps … It's a strike! Koufax's curve ball is

snapping off like a . . .firecracker! Here he comes with the next pitch. Tresh swings!

It's a long fly ball to deep left center! It's going! It's gone!!! Somebody give me a . . .

21

wiener before I die! It's the great Mickey Mantle, now! Here comes the pitch! Mantle

swings! It's a . . . . home run!!!!! !

24

The World Series scene in “Cuckoo’s Nest” is immortally sewn into the fabric of our

society, and reflects how baseball is such an important component of the scene itself.

Movies, as well as baseball, are social vehicles which reflect the hopes, dreams, and views

of society. In general, people rightfully want and expect fairness over cold bureaucracy.

This is particularly true with baseball, which is supposed to provide an escape from the

coldness of the “real world”. Baseball is supposed to be a place where fairness is first,

where dreams can come true, and where anything is possible – including the possibility of a

previously unheralded pitcher like Armando Galarraga achieving baseball immortality by

pitching a perfect game on one miraculous summer day in Detroit. Baseball should not

deteriorate into a forum where the honors and recognition that go with such an

incredible and hard-fought achievement are forever denied due to an unreasonably

bureaucratic and overly strict application of a tradition and rule which is not even

legitimately applicable in this particular situation.

The undersigned submit that the MLB Commissioner may carefully reflect upon the

spirit and message of the World Series scene in “Cuckoo’s Nest”. The underlying lesson

and principle of this scene is relevant and persuasive in hopefully bringing the Galarraga

matter to a fair and reasonable and just conclusion after all these years. The dispute in the

scene is between a highly energetic spirit vs. a rigid and ultra-technical administrative

bureaucrat, who strictly and literally enforces rules in a stifling fashion, and who

summarily rejects the possibility of exercising humane and reasonable flexibility in

exceptional circumstances, even if such flexibility and fairness would help lift the spirits

of the very population (patients) whose interests she is supposed to be serving. In short,

the struggle is between fundamental fairness and bureaucracy – and the wrongful

24

Jim Caple, “The World Series: A Part of Us All”, ESPN, October 21, 2012 available at

"https://www.espn.com/mlb/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8534260/the-world-series-finds-way-culture-far-baseball,

(last visited December 1, 2021)

22

following of a tradition or rule even when such tradition or rule generates an inequitable,

unfair and unreasonable result.

“Cuckoo’s Nest” is one of the only movies to ever win all four Academy Awards for Best

Film, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Director. It is itself a rare “perfect game” of a film,

and a masterpiece which has been appropriately recognized and honored as such by its

governing academy. In the Galarraga case, Major League Baseball can follow this

precedent by honoring, and finally including Galarraga’s own masterpiece on its list of

officially recognized perfect games where it rightfully belongs. The best interest of

baseball supports the Commissioner following the uplifting spirit of McMurphy and

rejecting the cold rigidity of Nurse Ratched in the World Series scene. Baseball can bring

people from different societies and cultures together. America itself is an amazing melting

pot, where people from all backgrounds can come together as one. Baseball is similar in the

sense that fans supporting teams come from different backgrounds themselves, but in that

moment, they are one. The ability to connect a diverse population, and include everyone in

a moment of togetherness is truly remarkable. Today, our population is more divided than

ever. Stress and tensions have polarized the American people. In a world where we are

divided, baseball continues to bring people together. No matter who one is, or where one

comes from or what one believes, all are welcome at a baseball game.

The reason baseball can transform a population of differing people into a group of fans

is because baseball highlights the societal and cultural values that are important to us.

Baseball promotes fairness, gives people opportunities to succeed, and brings people

together to enjoy themselves. Baseball is not a sport or game that should be defined by

Nurse Ratched-like bureaucracy , but rather how it makes people feel. Like anything else,

every baseball game has not been perfect. The players and deciding officials are human. As

humans, we make mistakes, and we miss calls. What is important is deciding to right the

wrongs when there is an opportunity to do so.

23

II) PROPOSED ACTION BY THE COMMISSIONER TO “DO THE RIGHT THING”

“Doing the right thing” is important in society because it is morally right to strive for

fairness in all respects. If someone has rightfully earned something, it is appropriate for the

accomplishment to be recognized.

The undersigned, through this presentation and in recognition of Major League

Baseball as a socially, culturally and historically significant component of our society,

respectfully propose that the Commissioner of Major League Baseball (“MLB”) may

invoke the equitable discretion inherently vested in the position, and take the following

steps based upon the exceptional and extraordinary factual circumstances in this case in

order to promote fairness, equity, justice, and sportsmanship in the best interest of

baseball:

1) The Commissioner in his equitable discretion may direct that Major League

Baseball officially recognize and include Armando Galarraga in its time-honored

official record of pitchers who have pitched a major league perfect game, in the

historical game between the Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians on June 2, 2010;

2) The Commissioner in his equitable discretion may direct the inclusion of a

numbered historical footnote as set forth below (not an asterisk) by Armando

Galarraga’s name, in an honorable manner in the official records, with such footnote

specifically explaining for future generations why MLB has taken the extraordinary

action of reconsidering the matter and finally including Armando Galarraga on the list

of perfect game pitchers years after the game in question concluded ;

3) The Commissioner in his equitable discretion may grant such relief based

upon consideration of multiple factors including the 10 separate points set forth in

this analysis and presentation, which equitably and fairly support such action by the

Commissioner in the name of fairness, and under “exceptional and extraordinary”

circumstances that (a) were and continue to be unprecedented in major league

history; (b) have not been repeated since the June 2, 2010 game, and (c) for the

reasons set forth in this presentation, are highly unlikely to ever repeat themselves in

any future major league baseball game;

4) The Commissioner in his equitable discretion may take such action by

recognizing that , for the reasons set forth in this presentation, the granting of such

24

equitable relief under the extremely rare and fact-sensitive considerations in this

case is highly unlikely to “open the floodgates” of future applications for the

Commissioner to overrule past or future calls of field umpires. Rather, the proposed

action is highly equitable in nature, with the Commissioner and MLB finally

authorizing the inclusion of Armando Galarraga as a perfect game pitcher, in the

creative and fair manner proposed herein. The proposal maintains the stability of

record-keeping, while simultaneously promoting fairness and equity and honor of

historic athletic achievements under the highly extraordinary factual circumstances

of this matter as detailed and analyzed in this submission;

5) The Commissioner in his equitable discretion may take the requested action

in support of the positive spirit of the game of baseball and its storied history as part

of American culture.

As part of this presentation, the undersigned submit a sample proposed resolution for

the Commissioner’s review and consideration, which if adopted in the same or similar

fashion, would officially amend the official list of major league perfect game pitchers to

appropriately include Armando Galarraga, with an appropriate explanatory footnote for

historical purposes, as follows:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION

WHEREAS:

1) On June 2, 2010, in a major league game between the Detroit Tigers and

Cleveland Indians, Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga retired the first 26 batters,

leaving him one batter and out away from achieving one of baseball’s most rare

and time-honored pitching achievements -- a perfect game -- with substantial

historical significance;

2) Regarding the 27

th

batter, all available evidence reflects clearly and

convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Galarraga reached first base

before the batter and achieved a putout in a manner which should have, at that

moment. concluded the contest with Galarraga receiving credit for pitching a

perfect game;

3) By clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the umpire,

Jim Joyce, incorrectly called the 27

th

batter safe instead of out by mistake ;

4) The same day (June 2, 2010) the umpire publicly and humbly

acknowledged that he had made the incorrect call and that the batter was out

25

rather than safe, and that the mistake by the official had cost Galarraga a

historic perfect game

25

,

26

;

5) The batter, Jason Donald has stipulated that he was out

27

,

28

;

6) No player, manager, umpire or other on field official has contended that

Donald was safe rather than out;

7) As the erroneous “safe” call was on what would have been the game’s final

play, the inaccurate call could not have impacted the strategic and/or

psychological flow of the game, as may have otherwise been the case if an

erroneous call was made earlier in the game;

8) After the erroneous call, Galarraga proceeded to retire the 28

th

batter, so

that no other runner reached first base in a manner to otherwise impair the

pitcher’s perfect achievement;

9) The gracious conduct of both pitcher Galarraga and Joyce thereafter has

served as a sterling model of sportsmanship, and respect for baseball and its

millions of fans throughout the world, including children who play Little League

Baseball;

10) The honoring of Galarraga under such circumstances does not impact the

result of the game in any statistical fashion, and is in fact fitting, appropriate

and in the best interest of baseball;

Now therefore, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, decrees in the

best interest of baseball and the spirit of fair play and the game itself, that

Major League Baseball shall hereinafter include in its official record of perfect

25

Associated Press: “Umpire: I Just Cost that Kid A perfect Game”, June 2, 2010 , available at

https://www.espn.com/mlb/recap/_/gameId/300602106 ; last read December 1, 2021 (“It was the biggest call of my

career, and I kicked the [stuff] out of it," Joyce said, looking and sounding distraught as he paced in the umpires' locker

room. "I just cost that kid a perfect game."

26

Joel Sherman, How Imperfect Game Changed Much More than the lives of Armando Galarraga, Jim Joyce, NY Post, June, 2,

2020, available at:

https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/imperfect-game-changed-more-than-armando-galarraga-jim-joyce/ (last visited

December 1, 2021)

27

Chris Gentilviso, Quotes: Jason Donald on Armando Galarraga’s Blown Perfect Game (“Yeah I was out”), Time, June 3,

2010, available at https://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/03/jason-donald-on-his-ground-ball-and-blown-perfect-game-

call/ (last visited December 1, 2021)

28

Ian Casselberry, Jason Donald Knows He was Out in Armando Galarraga’s Near –Perfect Game, SB Nation, June 2, 2011,

available at https://detroit.sbnation.com/detroit-tigers/2011/6/2/2203444/jason-donald-knows-he-was-out-in-

armando-galarragas-almost-perfect, last visited December 1, 2021. (“"He beat me," Donald said over the telephone

Wednesday. "He had the angle. The play happened right in front of me. I knew I was out immediately.")

26

game pitchers the name of Armando Galarraga for his pitching achievement on

June 2, 2010, along with a historical footnote explaining for posterity the

decision to include Galarraga based upon extraordinary circumstances, in a

manner the same as, or substantially similar to, the following:

PITCHERS CREDITED WITH HAVING ACCOMPLISHED A NINE INNING PERFECT GAME

1) Lee Richmond, Worcester Worcesters (June 12, 1880)

2) John Montgomery Ward, Providence Grays (June 17, 1880)

3) Cy Young, Boston Americans (May 5, 1904)

4) Addie Joss, Cleveland Naps (10/2/08)

5) Charlie Robertson, Chicago White Sox (April 30, 1922)

6) Don Larsen, New York Yankees (October 8, 1956) (*World Series)

7) Jim Bunning, Philadelphia Phillies (June 21. 1964)

8) Sandy Koufax, Los Angeles Dodgers (September 9, 1965)

9) Jim “Catfish” Hunter, Oakland Athletics (May 8, 1968)

10) Len Barker, Cleveland Indians (May 15, 1981)

11) Mike Witt, California Angels (September 30, 1984)

12) Tom Browning, Cincinnati Reds (September 16, 1988)

13) Dennis Martinez, Montreal Expos (Jul 28, 1991)

14) Kenny Rogers, Texas Rangers (July 28, 1994)

15) David Wells, New York Yankees (May 17, 1998)

16) David Cone, New York Yankees (July 18, 1999)

17) Randy Johnson, Arizona Diamondbacks (May 18, 2004)

18) Mark Buehrle, Chicago White Sox (July 23, 2009)

19) Dallas Braden, Oakland Athletics (May 9, 2010)

20) Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies (May 29, 2010)

21) Armando Galarraga, Detroit Tigers (June 2, 2010)

1

22) Philip Humber, Chicago White Sox (April 21, 2012)

23) Matt Cain, San Francisco Giants (June 13, 2012)

24) Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners (August 15, 2012)

27

1

By virtue of resolution and proclamation of the Commissioner of Major League

Baseball(MLB) issued (date), and based upon the extraordinary circumstances

surrounding the conclusion of the June 2, 2010 game and reasons set forth in

the statement of the Commissioner and appendix accompanying this document,

Major League Baseball has determined that as a matter of fairness, equity and

sportsmanship that are so essential to baseball, it is in the best interest of the

game that MLB honor and recognize Armando Galarraga for his perfect game of

June 2, 2010, and to include and recognize his feat for posterity and baseball

history. The Commissioner’s resolution is based on multiple factors as set forth in

the attached appendix, including the fact that overwhelming evidence reflects

clearly and convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Galarraga did retire

the 27

th

batter of what would have been the final out of a perfect game, but for the

innocent mistake of the first base umpire who first called the 27

th

batter “safe”

and then graciously stipulated the same day that his call on what should have

been the game’s final batter was incorrect.

There are several reasons why the above proposal is the “right thing” for Major League

Baseball and its millions of fans. For starters, the proposal recognizes the merit of hard

work. Galarraga did not pitch his way into his position by sheer luck - he used skill and

knowledge of his art of pitching to put himself in the position of accomplishing a perfect

game. Second, the proposed course of action can be used as an example of integrity. As of

now, the Galarraga game has been portrayed to the public as a negative and distasteful

example of injustice, unfairness, and a deprivation of one’s hard-earned and historical

athletic accomplishment. Should this matter be revisited and reconsidered, the story and

legacy of the event can be used by people in society as an example of positivity. Remedial

action by the Commissioner paints a positive story of justice -- a teaching moment that

will be useful in a society that has had constant debate about what justice is and how to

provide it. Reversing this decision also shakes the idea of a “by-the-book” bureaucracy.

Rules exist for a reason, but they should not be used to punish someone who is not in

violation of them. As such, action by the Commissioner can be used as a learning example

for other non-baseball cases concerning bureaucratic inflexibility.

28

Leaders with the authority and discretion to reflect and correct wrongs should be

encouraged to do so. For the following 10 reasons , the Commissioner of Baseball may act

to “do the right thing” in the case of Armando Galarraga and the 28-out perfect game of

June 2, 2010:

29

III) 10 POINTS OF EQUITY AND POLICY SUPPORTING ACTION BY

THE COMMISSIONER TO “DO THE RIGHT THING”

POINT 1

THE COMMISSIONER FUNCTIONS AS CHANCELLOR OVER MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL,

AND AS SUCH MAY MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON COURT-HONORED PRINCIPLES OF

REASON AND FAIRNESS IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

In the legal system of United States of America, we have principles of law and

principles of equity. Principles of law are general rules, while principles of equity are

designed to prevent injustice and unfairness in exceptional and extraordinary

circumstances. In considering the nature of equity and its relation to justice, the ancient

Greek philosopher Aristotle opined that equity’s role within the courts is to prevent the law

from adhering too rigidly to its own rules and principles when those rules and principles

produce injustice.

29

Equitable justice develops on an individualized, case-by-case basis within the courts for

the purpose of enhancing just outcomes and to adequately judge the requirements of

specific circumstances. Historically, courts of equity were presided over by a special type

of judge called the “chancellor” who had the responsibility to preside over matters, and

to consider the unique facts of each case presented and decide matters in a manner which

furthered and supported justice by applying certain basic principles of fairness, including

those set forth herein in applicable cases.

30

29

Allan Beever, Aristotle on Equity, Law and Justice, Legal Theory, University of Auckland, Cambridge University Press

(May 6, 2004), available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article/abs/aristotle-on-equity-law-and-

justice/F634F78AF6283A59, (last visited December 1, 2021).

30

While many states have merged their courts of equity with their courts of law, some states such as New Jersey continue

to have chancery courts and courts of equity.

30

Below are outlined principles of equity which are derived from Courts of New York

and New Jersey. Our sister states generally have similar principles, which generally

reference how a judge may equitably function in deciding a court case based upon equity

and fairness. Specifically, a chancery judge historically had discretionary authority to do

what is equitable when presented with the facts of a particular case.

New York : Relevant Principles of Equity

1) Let the hardship be strong enough, and equity will find a way, though many a

formula of inaction may seem to bar the path . . . this is justice in action. This is giving

meaning to the proper exercise of the jurisdiction of the court of chancery. See Graf v

Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 NY 1, 13, 171 NE 884, 888 (1930) (J. Cardozo dissenting; cited in MLF3

Jagger LLC v. Kempton, 56 Misc. 3d 227, 50 N.Y.S.3d 247 (Sup. Ct. 2017)

2) The powers of a court of equity are not limited by the fact that no precedent on

the precise question is discoverable; but when grounds exist calling for the exercise

of equitable power to furnish a remedy, the courts will not hesitate to act. Duncan v.

Laury, 249 App. Div. 314, 316-317, 292 N.Y.S. 138, 141 (2d Dept 1936).

3) A court of equity has flexible power to lend aid in unusual situations.

Accordingly, the granting of unprecedented equitable relief is appropriate in a novel

fact complex. See Rice v. Van Vranken, 132 Misc. 82, 86-87, 229 N.Y.S. 32, 37-38 (Sup. Ct.

1928). See also Ludlam v. Riverhead Bond & Mtge. Corp., 244 App. Div. 113, 119, 278 N.Y.S.

487, 494 (2d Dept 1935)

4) The fact that a proposed cause of action has not previously been recognized

by any court “is itself inconclusive” as to whether a court may fashion a particular

remedy/ The court noted that “it is the strength of the common law to respond,

albeit cautiously and intelligently, to the demands of common sense justice in an

evolving society.” See Madden v. Creative Servs., Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 738, 744, 622 N.Y.S.2d

478, 481, 646 N.E.2d 780, 783 (1995).

31

New Jersey : More Relevant Principles of Equity

5) Facts, not principles of law, decide cases. Clementi v. Clementi, 434 N.J. Super

529, 540 (Ch. Div. 2013) ; Musico v. Musico, 426 N.J. Super 276, 294 (Ch. Div. 2012 )

McKinley v. Naters, 419 N.J. Super 205, 211 (Ch. Div., 2010). Equity never permits a rigid

principle of law to smother the factual realities to which it is sought to be applied.

American Assoc. of Univ. Profs. V. Bloomfield Col., 129 N.J. Super 249, 274 (Ch. Div. 1974),

aff’d, 136 N.J. Super 442 (App. Div. 1975).

6) There is a broad extent of equity’s power to remedy a wrong. Cooper v. Nutley

Sun Printing Co., 36 N.J. 189, 200 (1961).

7) Equities arise and stem from facts which call for relief from the strict legal

effects of given situations Carr v. Carr, 120 N.J. 316, 351 (1990); Untermann v.

Untermann, 19 N.J. 507, 518 (1955) and a wrong suffered without a remedy is a blot

upon the sound administration of justice. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United

Electrical Co,, 139 N.J. Eq., 97, 108 (E & A 1946). Equitable remedies are distinguished

for their flexibility, their unlimited variety, their adaptability to circumstances and

the natural rules which govern their use. There is in fact no limit to their variety and

application; the power of equity has the power of deriving its remedy and shaping

of to fit the changing circumstance of every case and the complex relations of all the

parties . . . A lack of precedent or mere novelty in incident is no obstacle to the

award of equitable relief, if the case presented is referable to an established head of

equity jurisprudence – either of primary right or remedy merely. Sears Roebuck & Co

v. Camp, 124 N.J. Eq. 403, 411-12 (E & A 1938).

8) It is firmly recognized that judicial decision making is often creative. State v

Johnson, 43 N.J. 572, 583 (1965); State v Carter, 64 N.J. 382, 391 (1974), overruled on other

grounds, State v. Krol, 68 N.J; 236, 266 (1975). The judiciary is, then, on the one hand,

a guardian of the continuing stability, even handedness and predictability, and on

32

the other hand a participant in creative evolution that keeps law contemporary and

viable. Ft. Lee Sav. & Loan Assn v. Libutti, 106 N.J. Super 211, 218-219 (App Div.

1969(Carton Dissent); aff’d 55 N.J. 32 (1970).

The above judicial principles live and thrive in one form or another as tools to help

courts support and achieve the goals of fairness and equity in exceptional, extraordinary

and unprecedented situations, with appropriate flexibility, intellect and human

compassion. These goals are in keeping with the spirit of elevating equity and human

fairness over illogical application of rules and principles in a manner which yields

inequitable and unreasonable results.

On issues regarding the best interests of baseball, the Commissioner arguably has

similar equitable discretion to consider and apply these principles in fact-sensitive and

appropriate cases. As indicated in Article II, Section 2 (f) of Major League Baseball’s

Constitution, the Commissioner possesses discretionary power to “make decisions …

regarding on-field discipline, playoff rule interpretations, game protests, and any other

matter …” The Commissioner of Baseball is, in essence, Major League Baseball’s Chancellor.

A Chancellor is a leader with authority and responsibility to promote fairness. In

baseball, the role of the Commissioner as Chancellor is to oversee the sport and ensure

that the rules are interpreted in a reasonable and equitable manner, consistent with the

spirit of the game to promote fairness. In Major League Baseball, the Commissioner of

Baseball is the highest-ranking official in the sport, who as the sport’s Chancellor is

empowered with both the express and implied authority to oversee all aspects of the game

and safeguard the best interests of baseball and principles of fairness and equity in the

overall presentation of the game. Article II, Section 2 of the Major League Baseball’s

Constitution establishes the authority of the Commissioner, as follows:

ARTICLE II- THE COMMISSIONER.

Section 2: The functions of the Commissioner shall include (a) to serve as the Chief

Executive Officer of Major League Baseball; (b) to investigate, either upon complaint

33

or upon the Commissioner’s own initiative, any act, transaction or practice charged,

alleged or suspected to be not in the best interests of the national game of Baseball. . .

(f) to make decisions . . . regarding on-field discipline, playoff rule interpretations,

game protests and any other matter within the responsibility of the League

Presidents prior to 2000 (emphasis supplied )

Section 2(f)’s provision regarding “any other matter” is extremely broad, so as to

inherently vest the Commissioner with expansive discretion to fairly consider a multitude

of matters by applying logic, reason, fairness and equity to oversee the best interests of

baseball and the spirit of the game. In addressing and considering cases involving

exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, fair and equitable considerations include

protecting and reinforcing the role and spirit of the sport as critical part of American

culture, inclusive of its potential role as a public and social symbol of fair play, and its

historical importance and influence in the lives of millions of fans of all ages throughout

the nation.

Accordingly, in considering the exceptional and extraordinary Galarraga circumstance,

the Commissioner as Chancellor has the inherent authority and discretion under MLB’s

Constitution to consider and apply time-honored principles of equity which have

previously been recognized and applied in courts in order to promote and achieve

fairness in novel factual situations. Further, Major League Baseball has principal offices

in the neighboring states of New York and New Jersey (the Commissioner’s office is

physically located in New York City, while MLB Network is located across the bridge from

New York City in Secaucus, New Jersey). The Commissioner may by analogy consider

some of the foregoing fundamental principles of equity which have been long established,

recognized and honored in the judicial system in these states, and which judges sitting in

equity have in other cases creatively and constructively utilized to grant equitable relief in

order to accomplish fairness in exceptional and extraordinary situations.

The Commissioner can equitably recognize that (a) a great wrong occurred to Mr.

Galarraga , and that (b) facts, not strict principles of rules, should determine a fair review

of this specific case. See Clementi v. Clementi, 434 N.J. Super 529, 540 (Ch. Div. 2013);

Musico v. Musico, 426 N.J. Super 276, 294 (Ch. Div. 2012); McKinley v. Naters, 419 N.J.

34

Super 205, 211 (Ch. Div., 2010); American Assoc. of Univ. Profs. v. Bloomfield Col., 129 N.J.

Super 249, 274 (Ch. Div. 1974), aff’d, 136 N.J. Super 442 (App. Div. 1975). The

Commissioner of Major League Baseball has the authority to grant official recognition of

the June 2, 2010 pitching performance of Armando Galarraga as a perfect game, with a

detailed explanatory footnote for historical purposes. As this is a case of first impression,

the Commissioner’s office can review the facts of the case with practicality and fairness, to

ensure that equity is achieved. Since this case is without precedent, it is equitable that this

case is viewed holistically, bearing in mind the social, practical, and legal facets that would

ensure that justice is adequately served. See Madden v. Creative Servs., Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 738,

744, 622 N.Y.S.2d 478, 481, 646 N.E.2d 780, 783 (1995); Carr v. Carr, 120 N.J. 316, 351

(1990); Untermann v. Untermann, 19 N.J. 507, 518 (1955).

The Commissioner of Baseball -- as the “Chief Judge” or “Chancellor” of Major League

Baseball -- has not only the discretion, but an implicit obligation to at least consider

applying the foregoing equitable principles in exceptional, extraordinary and

unprecedented situations such as the Galarraga case, and to further consider the granting

of creative and constructive remedial relief. Such an approach is wholly consistent with

the vested authority and discretion of the Commissioner to further the best interests of

Major League Baseball as a symbol of honor and fair play rather than cold bureaucracy,

for the benefit of the sport and millions of fans throughout the nation and world.

35

POINT 2

THE “EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” PRINCIPLE:

WHY THE GALARRAGA GAME STANDS ALONE IN BASEBALL HISTORY

The 2010 Galarraga game is in fact a “perfect” example of how important it is to

prevent inequity from rigid interpretations of rules when doing so in fact results in

significant injustice. The Galarraga case is factually a matter involving truly “exceptional

and extraordinary” circumstances. In such a case, it is important to look at the

circumstances and principles of equity and justice which exist beyond an unreasonable

interpretation of the “black and white” rules of baseball.

As the Galarraga case unquestionably presents exceptional and extraordinary

circumstances, the specific unprecedented facts equitably support renewed review,

reconsideration and remedial action because there has not been a baseball circumstance

exactly like the Galarraga case either before or since June 2, 2010. As set forth, MLB’s

recognition of Galarraga’s effort as a perfect game would not create a “slippery slope” in

terms of precedent because this game is such an exceptional and extraordinary

circumstance. The umpire, Jim Joyce, has stood by his statement that his call was incorrect

since immediately after the game concluded. The 27

th

batter from the opposing team

that was involved in disputed play (Jason Donald) also affirmed that the “safe” call was

wrong and that he was out, and there is no indication that the Cleveland Indians take any

issue whatsoever with MLB now reconsidering and formally recognizing Galarraga’s

performance as a perfect game in its official records under an “exceptional and

extraordinary circumstance” analysis of this case.

Meanwhile, Galarraga worked extremely hard for his achievement, played honestly,

and was still denied credit for his perfect game. Umpire Jim Joyce publicly and

immediately apologized and has voiced his support of for overturning his call. There will

be no damaging consequences at all if the Commissioner acts in the name of fairness. The

36

public continues to stand behind Galarraga and Joyce, as their iconic act of true

sportsmanship in 2010 won hearts worldwide.

In 2010, the then-Major League Commissioner declined to address the possibility of

either (a) reversing Umpire Joyce’s “safe” call against Galarraga, or (b) alternatively,

maintaining the call but still granting official recognition and credit to the pitcher

Galarraga for achieving a perfect game. Facts and circumstances of the Galarraga game,

however, are so unique that there is no reasonable possibility that the granting of relief will

somehow set an undesirable precedent to “open the floodgates” for countless requests for

reviews of major league games. Even in other games where this was a theoretical

“possibility”, such as in the 1983 “Pine Tar” game (addressed in “Point 3” below), a

decision was made to overturn an umpire’s decision which has not resulted in a floodgate

effect. The MLB and the Commissioner’s office has not been overwhelmed with endless

cases demanding overturns of certain calls or plays. Further, regarding the uniqueness of

Galarraga’s perfect game, there is no other known example in MLB history of a pitcher

having the consensus of the umpire and the opposing player that the call was incorrect.

This makes Galarraga’s situation certainly distinguishable from other past incident in

MLB history, and highly unlikely to repeat itself in the future unless the stars were to align

exactly in a hypothetical scenario.

Every decision should be recognized in light of its coherence with the factual

circumstances of the case it decides. Issacson v. Boswell, 18 N.J. Super 95, 96 (App. Div.

1952).) The Galarraga case is an extraordinary situation without on-point precedent either

way, and thus can be taken as an opportunity for new pathways by which the

Commissioner can publicly deliver fairness and justice in baseball, in a manner consistent

with the entire spirit of the game itself .

In addressing whether the Galarraga case presents “exceptional and extraordinary

circumstances” supporting remedial action by the Commissioner of Major League

Baseball, the answer is overwhelmingly in the affirmative. There have been over 200,000

37

major league games played since 1869.

31

Among them, the June 2, 2010 Galarraga game

factually stands alone as the only game in major league history, in which (a) the involved

players on both sides and the umpire on a disputed final play all agree that the last out of

what would have been a historical perfect game was incorrectly called safe, and (b) clear,

convincing, and irrefutable evidence exists beyond any reasonable doubt that the umpire’s

call was in fact incorrect. In fact, to this day, there has been no identified person from

either team or the umpiring crew who has claimed that the call was accurate and that

27

th

batter was safe rather than out. The fact that Galarraga proceeded after the

erroneous call to retire the next (28

th

) opposing batter, -- thereby allowing no other base

runners from beginning to end of the entire game -- further underscores the exceptional

and extraordinary nature of the circumstances of the June 2, 2010 game.

Prior to instant replay, the “rule” and “precedent” generally directed that an

umpire’s call was final. As previously noted, however, rules and precedent are not to be

applied in the abstract, but must be considered in light of the facts in an individual case. See

Hanover Ins. Co. v. Franke, 75 N.J. Super 68, 74 (App. Div. 1962), cert. den. 38 N.J. 308

(1962). Our courts have noted that, cases are not decided, or the law appropriately

understood, apart from an informed and particularized insight into the factual

circumstances of the controversy in litigation. Elizabethtown Water Consol. v. Bontempo,

67 N.J. Super 8, 13 (App. Div. 1961). The influence of a legal rule enunciated in a

precedential case is measured in accordance with whether it does or does not “fit” the case

at bar. Every decision should be recognized in light of its coherence with the factual

circumstances of the case it decides. Issacson v. Boswell, 18 N.J. Super 95, 96 (App. Div.

1952). Accordingly, the Commissioner may undertake reconsideration and fresh review

of the Galarraga case at this time .

31

Baseball Reference, Major League Historical Totals, https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/index.shtml (last

visited December 1, 2021 )

38

POINT 3

THE GEORGE BRETT “PINE TAR” GAME (1983):

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL HAS AN ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT FOR REVERSING AN

UMPIRE’S ON-FIELD CALL IN AN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY

CIRCUMSTANCE

As detailed below, there exists precedent for Major League Baseball overturning an

umpire’s on-field call in factually exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in order to

promote equity, fairness, and the spirit of the game of baseball over the literal translation

of a rule. This precedent is the 1983 “Pine Tar” game, in which American League President

Lee MacPhail and Major League Baseball overruled a “27

th

out” decision by the home plate

Umpire which would have given the New York Yankees a victory over the Kansas City

Royals, and instead ordered the game to continue in a manner which ultimately resulted in

a victory by the Royals. The circumstances of the 1983 Pine Tar game are set forth below.

Following the reversal of the Umpire’s call by the League President, there were many

including the Major League Umpires Association (as well as the Yankees’ owner) who

were upset at MacPhail’s decision. The umpires were concerned by the perceived lack of

support from the League offices, while the Yankees were naturally upset because after

being declared winners, the result was retracted. Yet, A.L. President MacPhail still changed

the umpire’s call, regardless of various protests, because President MacPhail valued

making what he considered to be the equitable decision, as was the role of the League

President. This is the same role which the present MLB Commissioner plays, i.e., to

oversee equity and fairness in the game of baseball.

As stated in the Major League Constitution, the role of the Commissioner is “to make

decisions, or to designate an officer of the Commissioner’s Office to make decisions,

regarding on-field discipline, playing rule interpretations, game protests and any other

matter within the responsibility of the League Presidents prior to 2000” (Article 2 Sec.

2(f)). The 1983 Pine Tar game demonstrates that it is possible for the Commissioner to

this rule of discretion into practice. It does not go against the spirit of baseball to right a

39

wrong. The 1983 Pine Tar game established a precedent that the MLB front office has the

ability to make the final call on on-field issues, as well as a responsibility to protect the

spirit of the game.

Nearly four decades after the Pine Tar game, it is clear that the President’s decision

did not undermine the authority of the umpires or harm the game of baseball itself. MLB’s

overruling of the umpire reaffirmed the role of a “Baseball Chancellor”, and put the spirit

of the game at the heart of the final decision. By analogy, MLB’s Commissioner may now

assume a similar role by re-opening, reviewing and reconsidering the Galarraga matter,

and ultimately and officially recognize Galarraga’s perfect game with a historical

explanatory footnote for posterity.

The George Brett “Pine Tar” Game: A Closer Look

On July 24, 1983, the New York Yankees were hosting the Kansas City Royals in a

regular season game at Yankee Stadium. In the top of the ninth inning, the Yankees were

leading 4-3, with two outs and one runner on base, and Kansas City third baseman

George Brett at bat. Brett proceeded to hit a two-run home run off Yankee pitcher Rich

“Goose” Gossage, which appeared to give the Royals a 5-4 lead. Upon protest from New

York manager Billy Martin, however, home plate umpire Tim McClelland and his fellow

field umpires proceeded to inspect Brett’s bat, and concluded that the amount of pine tar

on the bat exceeded the amount permitted by rule. Umpire McClelland called an enraged

Brett out, and nullified the home run, thus ending the game and apparently giving the

Yankees a 4-3 victory.

Kansas City protested Umpire McClelland’s on-field call to the American League

President, Lee MacPhail, who proceeded to review the matter. Four days later, President

MacPhail announced that he had decided to uphold the protest and reverse Umpire’s

McClelland’s call after considering the spirit of the game and the best interest of baseball.

40

Said President Macphail : “It was not a hard decision for me to make, for in my opinion, the

rule, the intent of the rule, and past precedents clearly indicated the umpire had erred.”

32

Notably, the League’s reversal was over the strong objection of the on-field umpiring

crew.

33

Further, the decision not only overruled the umpire, but dramatically and directly

changed the outcome of the game itself. In reversing the umpire’s call, Macphail ruled that

the game was to be resumed from the point of Brett’s now-reinstated home run.

Accordingly, the game was resumed on August 18, 1983, and the Royals won 5-4. At the

time, this reversal in outcome had the potential to impact each team’s final standing in their

respective pursuits of division championships and the opportunity to participate in post-

season playoffs and the World Series.

In overruling the umpire’s call, some commentators feared at the time that the

league’s decision to reverse the umpire’s call was going to somehow “open the floodgates”

for endless applications and front-office reviews of past and future calls by on-field

officials in other games. Nearly 40 years after the fact, however, it is clear with 20/20

hindsight that no such floodgate impact ever occurred. In fact, the Brett case opened no

floodgates at all, but rather was a specific decision tailored to a highly unique, fact-

sensitive, exceptional and extraordinary circumstance which the League rendered in the

best interest of the sport. Essentially, the League President exercised the powers and

discretion of his office to achieve equity and fairness – similar to how a chancellor or

judge in our judicial system is at times empowered to rule in exceptional , extraordinary

and unprecedented situations in order to achieve equity.

It is also clear with absolute historical certainty that the Brett decision did not in any

way cause any general dilution of the authority of baseball umpires, or somehow harm

32

Lee MacPhail, My Nine Innings: An Autobiography of 50 Years in Baseball (Westport, CT: Meckler Books, 1989, p. 155;

cited by Society for Baseball Research, https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/lee-macphail/ (last visited December 1, 2021).

33

Pittsburgh Press, Brett Happy, Umps Angry, (July 29, 1983), available at

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=guIhAAAAIBAJ&pg=5139%2C6229003.

(last visited December 1, 2021)

41

the game of baseball itself. Conversely, the 1983 Brett decision very clearly established a

precedent regarding the ability and equitable discretion of the MLB front office to exercise

the final word on on-field matters in order to protect the spirit of the game and the best

interests of baseball itself.

In applying the precedent of the Brett/Pine Tar case to the Galarraga case, there are

at least four separate reasons why MLB’s ability to take equitable action in the name of

fairness is even more appropriate in the Galarraga case than the Brett case:

A) In the Brett case, MLB’s reversal of the umpire’s call actually reversed the

outcome of the game. In the Galarraga case, any present remedial action by MLB

does not affect the outcome of the June 2, 2010 Tigers-Indians contest in any way.

B) In the Brett case, MLB’s reversal of the on-field call was over the strong

objection of the on-field umpires. In the Galarraga case, the umpire who made the

call not only publicly and immediately admitted his mistake, but has ever since

consistently supported corrective remedial action by MLB to recognize Galarraga’s

perfect game.

C) In the Brett case, the opposing team (Yankees) vehemently objected to MLB

overturning the umpire’s call.

34

In the Galarraga game, however, there has never

been an objection by the opposing team to MLB officially recognizing Galarraga’s

perfect game.

D) In the Brett case, the umpire’s call was in a regular season game which had no

historical relevance independent of the League’s reversal of the call itself. In the

Galarraga case, however, the umpire’s call immediately and drastically impacted

baseball history relative to the occurrence of a highly rare perfect game.

By applying the precedent of the Brett case to the Galarraga case, one may

reasonably conclude that the granting of equitable relief in this exceptional and

extraordinary circumstance is highly unlikely to “open the floodgates” for reviews of other

34

It is reported that “Yankees owner, George Steinbrenner was so furious that he made disparaging public comments

about MacPhail that would eventually cost him $250,000 in a fine levied upon him by Baseball Commissioner, Bowie

Kuhn”. See Baseball Academy, The George Brett Pine Tar Game Was Not the First Pine Tar Game, available at

https://baseballrulesacademy.com/the-george-brett-pine-tar-game-was-not-the-first-pine-tar-game/

(last visited December 1, 2021)

42

past or future games. Just as in the Brett case, the Gallaraga case is extremely fact-

sensitive, and involves a million-to-one circumstance (with high historical consequences).

Hence, any remedial action now taken by the Commissioner and MLB to recognize and

credit Galarraga’s achievement as a perfect game in the official records is naturally limited

to the circumstances presented in the Galarraga case itself. Moreover, as regarding future

games, MLB instituted the expansive use of an instant replay protocol in 2014. Therefore,

it is now even more unlikely that a Galarraga situation can repeat itself , or that a perfect

game can be unfairly diminished by a clearly erroneous call beyond a reasonable doubt on

the 27

th

and final batter.

In short, the Brett precedent supports action in the Galarraga case, as a matter of

fairness consistent with the spirit of the game. Further, in Galarraga’s case , the main

participant in the play -- – the batter, the umpire, and Galarraga, all agree that Galarraga got

the batter out. In the Pine Tar game, MacPhail overruled a decision made by multiple

umpires on the field and the will of the Major League Umpires Association in order to

change the outcome. In Galarraga’s case, these factors simply do not exist.

Further, unlike the 1983 Pine Tar Game, remedial action in the case of Galarraga’s 2010

perfect game will have no effect on the overall outcome of the game, and would

appropriately award him recognition of a rare statistic in baseball, of which he is equitably

and wholly deserving.

It is important to note the consequences of the League President or Commissioner

overruling the umpire’s decision. In the Pine Tar game, MacPhail’s overruling led to a game

that had been finished actually resuming at a later date in the middle of the 9

th

inning. In

the end, it resulted in the Yankees, who were previously declared the winners, losing. In

contrast, giving Galarraga credit for his “perfect” game would not change the overall result

of the game because the Detroit Tigers already won. It would however, likely mean

something very important to Galarraga and his team to finally have his name appropriately

recognized in the record books for an achievement he earned. It would also likely mean

43

something equally important to Umpire Jim Joyce to know his mistake and the call that he

himself said was erroneous has finally been made right.

The Commissioner has the discretion to make decisions based on the spirit of the

rules. In both Galarraga’s 2010 perfect game and the 1983 Pine Tar game, we can see the

similarities in the situations and how the rules of baseball can be interpreted differently. In

1983 when the Pine Tar game was played, President MacPhail decided that the punishment

of declaring Brett out, did not match the “violation.” MacPhail determined that the umpire’s

ruling, while technically defensible, was not in accord with the intent or the spirit of the

rules, and that the spirit of rules did not require that a hitter be called out for excessive use

of pine tar. In Galarraga’s situation, the then-Commissioner apparently believed that once

an umpire made a call, it was final, even if it was wrong. When making this decision, he was

likely referring to the following rule from The Official Baseball Rules: “. . . 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” (Rule

8.02a). However, this rule fails to mention one way or the other what can fairly and

equitably happen in the Commissioner’s discretion if it is the umpire who admits their

own decision is wrong . Rather, the spirit of this rule as originally written is more logically

to ensure umpires are respected against objection and that the game keeps moving

forward. In this sense, the spirit of the rule and respect for Umpire Joyce’s own wishes

would be upheld if the Commissioner were to recognize Galarraga’s perfect game today.

In both the Brett case and the Galarraga case, the rules were unclear for these very

specific unprecedented circumstances and were thus open for interpretation or

misinterpretation. The question remains; What is the best and most equitable decision in

the spirit of baseball? The answer in this specific case supports remedial action.

44

POINT 4

THE 1991 HARVEY HADDIX CASE:

MLB HAS PRECEDENT FOR RETROACTIVE RECONSIDERATION

OF A PERFECT GAME DECADES AFTER THE FACT

In the assessment of MLB history, Armando Galarraga was not the only pitcher to be

denied recognition of a perfect game. As described in detail below, there is a game which

took place in 1959 involving pitcher Harvey Haddix, the Pittsburgh Pirates and the

Milwaukee Braves which is relevant to the present analysis of the Galarraga matter.

In 1959, Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Harvey Haddix pitched nine perfect innings against

the Milwaukee Braves. Haddix’ game, however, did not stop after the ninth inning, as the

Pirates had not scored. Haddix continued to throw another three perfect innings, still

without either team scoring. In the 13th inning, an error was made by one of Haddix’

teammates, followed shortly thereafter by a hit which resulted in the Braves winning 1-0.

When Haddix pitched 12 perfect innings, no prior precedent existed for how MLB was

to address games in which (a) a pitcher was perfect through nine complete innings and 27

batters, but (b) the game nonetheless went into extra innings. Although the

circumstances were at that time unprecedented, Harvey Haddix was for many years

universally recognized as a perfect game pitcher.

In 1991 -- 32 years later -- the then-Commissioner of the MLB (Fay Vincent) utilized

the discretion of his position to formulate a new “Committee for Statistical Accuracy” to

assess and review the historical baseball records -- including the 1959 Harvey Haddix

perfect game. The Commissioner and the new Committee proceeded to retroactively

withdraw MLB recognition of Haddix’ achievement as a perfect game three decades after

the fact, because even though Haddix was perfect for 12 innings, he gave up baserunners

in the 13

th

inning.

.

45

The 1959 Haddix Game: A Closer Look

On May 26, 1959, Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Harvey Haddix pitched against the

Milwaukee Braves in what many baseball historians consider the greatest mound

performance in major league history.

35

,

36

Through 9 innings, Haddix was perfect in

retiring all 27 Braves batters he faced. The Pirates, however, did not score any runs in

support of Haddix, and for the first time in major league history, a perfect game extended

into extra innings as a scoreless tie.

37

In unprecedented fashion, Haddix continued to pitch

perfectly through the 10

th

, 11

th

and 12

th

innings, retiring 36 Milwaukee batters in a row.

The Pirates, however, still could not score a run, and the game remained a 0-0 tie through

12 complete innings . Finally, in the 13

th

inning, an error by the Pirates’ third baseman

put a Braves runner on first base, ending Haddix’ streak of perfection. Haddix

subsequently surrendered a hit and a run, and lost the game 1-0.

Thereafter, for 32 years between 1959-1991, Haddix was recognized as a perfect

game pitcher for his incredible 12 inning streak of perfection . In 1991, however, – 32

years after the fact -- MLB administratively exercised its discretion to unilaterally

withdraw historical recognition of Haddix as a perfect game pitcher. Specifically, on

September 4, 1991, Major League Baseball’s “Committee for Statistical Accuracy” -- which

was appointed and chaired by then-Commissioner Fay Vincent -- decided to retroactively

change the definition of a perfect game to one “. . . when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires

each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at

least nine innings. In a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the

35

Albert Chen, The Greatest Game Ever Pitched, Sports Illustrated, pp. 62-67 (June 1, 2009), available at

https://vault.si.com/vault/2009/06/01/the-greatest-game-ever-pitched, (last visited December 1, 2021).

36

Bob Dvorchak, In 1959 Harvey Haddix Pitched Perhaps the Best Game Ever – and Lost. thttps://www.post-

gazette.com/pirates/2009/05/24/In-1959-Harvey-Haddix-pitched-perhaps-the-best-game-ever-and-

lost/stories/200905240102, (last visited December 1, 2021)

37

The 1908 Hooks Wiltse game, discussed later in this submission in Point 6, went into extra innings as well, but because

Wiltse had hit the 27

th

batter and put him on first base after the disputed ball-strike call, the game was no longer a perfect

game by the start of the tenth inning, but instead an ongoing no-hitter

46

game.”

38

Thus, along with eliminating various types of games as “perfect”, such as rain

shortened games of less than 9 innings, MLB eliminated recognition of Haddix’ perfect

game as well.

Most significantly, MLB in its discretion determined to implement the change

retroactively, without a “grandfather” clause protecting a pitcher such as Haddix, who had

pitched 12 perfect innings and whose status as a perfect game pitcher had long been

previously established and historically recognized. While MLB could have, in its

administrative discretion, limited the change to future prospective pitching

performances so as to keep Haddix on the honorable list of perfect game pitchers based on

his extraordinary achievement, the Commissioner and Committee chose to do otherwise.

Accordingly, as a result of this 1991 administrative decision, Major League Baseball

excluded Harvey Haddix from its historical list of perfect game pitchers, thereby

essentially stripping him of official credit for a perfect game or -- even a no-hitter -- for

his historic pitching performance 32 years earlier on May 26, 1959. MLB chose to take

this action despite the fact that as of the time of this 1991 decision, no other pitcher in

Major League history besides Haddix had ever retired the first 27 batters of a game and

then continued pitching the perfect game into extra innings.

39

While MLB could have

simply maintained Haddix on the official list of perfect game pitchers with an explanatory

footnote under such exceptional and extraordinary the circumstances rather than take

away the honor 32 years after the fact , the Commissioner and the Committee exercised

discretion and elected to go in another direction.

The 1991 decision by Major League Baseball to remove its recognition of Haddix as a

perfect game pitcher reflects two major points that are extremely relevant in the present

Galarraga case. First, the Haddix case demonstrates that MLB through its Commissioner

38

MLB Official Information available at http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/about_mlb/rules_regulations.jsp, (last

visited December 1, 2021).

39

In 1995, Montreal Expos’ pitcher Pedro Martinez carried a perfect game against the Sand Diego Padres into the tenth inning before

surrendering a hit. See Jessica Camerato, Pedro Nearly Etches Name in Perfecto History. MLB.com, , May 5, 2020. Available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/pedro-martinez-s-1995-near-perfect-game-streaming (last visited May 5, 2020). That game, however,

differed from the Haddix game as it took place four years after the 1991 Rule changes regarding perfect games, and there was no issue

regarding retroactively reviewing and modifying the status of one’s pitching performance as a perfect game.

47

has discretion to retroactively address the recognition and status of perfect games years

or decades after the fact. Hence, just as the past Commissioner and the Committee had the

authority in 1991 to administratively elect to subtract Haddix from the list of perfect game

pitchers long after the game in question ended, the present Commissioner and his

committee can in 2021 equally elect to administratively add Galarraga to the list of

perfect game pitchers -- with an appropriate historical explanatory footnote – long after

the game in question ended.

Additionally, MLB’s decision to retroactively subtract Haddix from its official list of

perfect game pitchers – rather than grandfathering Haddix in and permitting his

presence on the storied and historical list of perfect game pitchers -- underscores the

potential benefit of adding an element of humanity over cold bureaucracy into certain

decisions in Major League Baseball. While baseball is a “game”, for professional

participants it is also a huge part of their identities and lives. The Haddix case emphasizes

the human element and detrimental impact which inflexible, bureaucratic administrative

“committee” decisions can have on an athlete in question, and how personally and

emotionally devastating it can be for an athlete to be administratively denied credit for

what was actually, legitimately and undisputedly achieved in historic fashion on the field.

In the 1991 Haddix case, after being informed of Major League Baseball’s retroactive

exclusion of his pitching feat from the official list of perfect games, Harris’ first response

was "It's O.K. I know what I did."

40

Thereafter, however, he admitted that ″it’s

disappointing to find out it’s not a no-hitter, but it’s still the record. . . . Most consecutive

perfect innings, most consecutive batters retired.″ ″

41

In 1994, only three short years after

40

Albert Chen, The Greatest Game Ever Pitched, Sports Illustrated, pp. 62-67 (June 1, 2009), available at

https://vault.si.com/vault/2009/06/01/the-greatest-game-ever-pitched, (last visited December 1, 2021).

41

Jim Donaghy, Extra Inning, Associated Press (September 5, 1991), available at

https://apnews.com/article/9a48ac96f06749fa10d0a8d97f2fc8df (last visited December 1, 2021)

48

MLB withdrew its official recognition of Haddix as a perfect game pitcher, Haddix died.

Inscribed on his gravestone are the words: “Pitched 12 Perfect Innings May 26 1959.

42

Impact Of 1991 Haddix Decision

The then-MLB Commissioner’s 1991 decision ruled essentially that an official perfect

game occurs when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during

the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings. In a perfect game, no

batter reaches any base during the course of the game (MLB). The administrative decision

made on September 4, 1991 meant that although Haddix had thrown more perfect innings

in a single game than anyone in history , his performance was being “wiped off” the list of

perfect games. Although Galarraga did not step off the pitcher’s mound in 2010 with a

perfect game like Haddix had in1959, their experiences are arguably similar. If a rule can

change the recognition of a perfect game 32 years later, there can be no question that the

Commissioner can revisit and review the Galarraga case, and the status of his perfect game,

only 11 years after the fact.

As noted, on Haddix’ grave, it does not say “Perfect Game Pitcher”, but rather “pitched

12 perfect innings”. Although Haddix walked away from his game as a perfect game

pitcher, the decision made thirty-two years after the game concluded took away his title

based on a new rule. In Galarraga’s case, a simple human error of making the wrong call

was the deciding factor for Galarraga’s legacy of perfection. Yet although Umpire Jim Joyce

voiced his opinions on the matter and publicly announced his mistake, MLB still did not

and would not recognize Galarraga’s perfect game. Further, had instant replay been fully

allowed in 2010, there would be literally no legitimate dispute about the matter, and

42

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5861312/harvey-haddix (last visited December 1, 2021)

49

Galarraga would have been recognized for pitching just the 21

st

perfect game in the long

history of Major League Baseball.

43

If MLB has the equitable discretion to change recognition of a perfect game after 32

years in the Haddix case, then it has reciprocal equitable discretion to review and

recognize a perfect game’s outcome after 11 years under exceptional and extraordinary

circumstances. Such logic is consistent with Major League Baseball’s prior decision in

the Haddix case, as well as with the reality that such review and reconsideration is

consistent with fairness, equity, and the spirit of Major League Baseball.

43

Paul Kasabian, Ex-Tiger Armando Galarraga: Don’t want to die without MLB noting my perfect game, Bleacher Report,

May 12, 2020, available at https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2891390-ex-tiger-armando-galarraga-dont-want-to-die-

without-mlb-noting-my-perfect-game (last visited December 1, 2021)

50

POINT 5

THE 2014 YU DARVISH CASE:

MLB HAS PRECEDENT FOR OVERTURNING A CALL REGARDING AN

ONGOING/HISTORICAL NO-HITTER

Beyond the 1991 Harvey Haddix precedent, there is also a recent example and

precedent of how Major League Baseball may exercise equitable discretion and take

action to retroactively modify a ruling in a game involving a pending no-hitter. The game

is question is the Yu Darvish game of 2014.

On May 9, 2014, Yu Darvish of the Texas Rangers was pitching a no-hitter against the

Boston Red Sox. With two out in the ninth inning, Red Sox batter David Ortiz hit a single,

making Darvish only the second pitcher in modern major league baseball history to twice

in his career lose a no-hitter with two out in the ninth inning.

44

,

45

Two days later,

however, Major League Baseball elected to utilize its administrative discretion, and

retroactively reversed and reclassified a seventh inning error to a hit,

46

thereby

overruling the official scorer’s field call and modifying and eliminating Darvish’s on-field

historical accomplishment of having twice taking a no-hitter up to the final potential out.

By analogy , under the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the Gallarrga

game and a clearly erroneous field call, the Commissioner of Baseball is permitted to

exercise equitable discretion similar to that utilized in the Darvish game, and to either (1)

change the erroneous official game call from a hit to an out, or (2) alternatively, leave the

on-field call intact, but nonetheless still add and include Garallaga on the official list of

44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JSPAQqd78c

45

Associated Press Yu Darvish Loses No-Hitter in Ninth Inning, (May 10, 20114), available at

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/05/09/yu-darvish-losses-no-hitter-in-ninth-inning/8930529/

(last visited December 1 2021).

46

T.R. Sullivan, MLB Alters Ruling for Ortiz in Darvish’s No-Hit Bid, MLB.com, (May 14, 2014), available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rules-david-ortiz-broke-up-yu-darvishs-no-hitter-in-seventh/c-75453686.

(last visited December 1, 2021).

51

major league “perfect game” pitchers for the sake of posterity, along with an explanatory

footnote regarding the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the final out and

aftermath.

MLB’s overruling and change of the Darvish call was a reversal of the official scorer

rather than of the umpire. Nonetheless, as both the official scorer and the umpire act on

behalf of , and under the authority of, Major League Baseball, the logic behind the ability

of the Commissioner to review and consider relief in exceptional and extraordinary

circumstances arguably applies equitably in both cases. In the Darvish game, both the

fielder who misjudged the ball and the official scorer stated that they believed the original

decision to call the play an error was correct. The fielder, Alex Rios, stated that “I should

have taken control of that ball”, and that “we were camped under the ball, so it can be

called an error. According to Rule 9.12, the definition of an error is “a statistic charged

against a fielder whose action has assisted the team on the offense” (Official Baseball Rules,

2021 Edition). The fact that Rios or any major league baseball fielder would be able to catch

the ball a majority of the time, unless he made an uncharacteristic mistake, means that

according to this rule, the play could be considered an error.

Steven Weller was the scorer who made this call, and who was a veteran with 20 years’

experience in scoring games. He stated immediately following the game that he “felt like

the second baseman or right fielder under normal effort could’ve clearly caught the ball.”

47

The scorer and player involved in the play agreed with the original decision, and yet the

MLB still decided to overrule the decision and grant David Ortiz a single instead of calling

the play an error. This is distinct from the Galarraga case, where the batter, pitcher, and

umpire who made the call all agreed that the umpire’s call was wrong. The Darvish case

shows how the Commissioner has -- and should have -- the authority to overrule a decision

made by a baseball official, whether it be a scorer or an umpire, even if the official stands

47

AP, Yu Darvish Loses No-Hitter in Ninth Inning’, USA Today (May 9, 2014),

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/05/09/yu-darvish-losses-no-hitter-in-ninth-inning/8930529/ (last

visited December 1, 2021)

52

by their original call, and especially when as the official does not stand by the original call

and supports a change as in the Galarraga case.

Relevancy of the Darvish Game to The Galarraga Analysis

As noted, in the 2014 Darvish game, it was the official scorer’s decision rather than

the umpire’s decision that was retroactively changed by MLB. While the roles of the

official scorer and the umpire are technically different, they both act as game officials and

as agents / representatives of MLB , to make the game of baseball as fair and accurate as

possible.

According to Rule 9.01, the role of the official scorer is to score the game and provide

those scores to the League.

48

The role of the umpire in baseball is less logistical; the fast-

paced decision-making of the position in relation to an official scorer means an umpire’s

ruling is more prone to error by its very nature. Plainly, the role of the scorer is to keep

score and to keep track of the teams, compared to that of the umpire’s role to keep the

game moving (a role which is more subject to error). If the scorer’s ruling is able to be

overturned, then both logically and equitably, the umpire’s call in the Galarraga case --

which was agreed by all involved to be erroneous in the final out of a historical perfect

game -- can be reconsidered as well.

Notably, in the Darvish game, the changed statistic did not affect the game. The

changing of the call had no effect on the game or the standings of the teams. This is

analogous to the Galarraga situation, if the Commissioner were to take remedial action

and recognize Galarraga’s perfect game. MLB’s recognition of the perfect game would have

no effect on the outcome of the June 2, 2010 Tigers-Indians game or the final standings for

both teams.

48

See Rule 9.01, 2021 Official Rules of Major League Baseball, https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-

images/image/upload/mlb/atcjzj9j7wrgvsm8wnjq.pdf.

53

In summary, the Darvish game demonstrates how the Commissioner and MLB can

review and equitably consider calls which reflect historic on-field circumstances. The

Commissioner can utilize similar equitable discretion under the exceptional, extraordinary

and historical circumstances of the Galarraga case to support an equitable resolution.

54

POINT 6

APPLES vs. ORANGES:

THERE ARE MAJOR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE GALARRAGA GAME AND

TWO OTHER NEAR-PERFECT GAMES LOST CONTROVERSIALLY

ON THE 27

th

BATTER:

A) the 1908 Hooks Wiltse Game

B) the 1972 Milt Pappas Game

In the 150+ year and 200,000+ game history of Major League Baseball, there have

been two other well-known games besides the Galarraga game where a pitcher lost a

perfect game on a controversial call with two out in the ninth inning. These are (A) the

1908 Hooks Wiltse game and (B) the 1972 Milt Pappas game. As set forth in detail below,

these two games are highly distinguishable from the circumstances and issues arising in

the 2010 Galarraga game, for various reasons including the fact that unlike the Galarraga

game, the Wiltse game and the Pappas game did not involve a situation where the game’s

27

th

batter in a perfect game was indisputably out beyond a reasonable doubt but was

nonetheless ruled safe on what would have been the game’s final play. By contrast, the

2010 Galarraga game is the only game in major league history which clearly and

convincingly fits into this highly exceptional and extraordinary category.

6A) The 1908 Hooks Wiltse Game

On July 4, 1908, Hooks Wilste of the New York Giants retired the first 26 Philadelphia

Phillies batters he faced in a scoreless tie game. Wiltse then reached a 1-2 count on the

27

th

batter, George McQuillan, and threw a pitch which Wiltse believed was a strike. Home

plate umpire Cy Rigler , however, ruled otherwise and called the pitch a ball. This

brought the count on the batter to 2-2. On the very next pitch, Wiltse hit the batter,

thereby losing the perfect game as the hit batsman advanced to first base. Ultimately,

55

Wiltse continued to pitch and retired the next batter in the inning, but the game score was

still 0-0 and so the game advanced into extra innings due to the scoreless tie. In the tenth

inning, Wiltse held the Phillies’ scoreless and the Giants scored a run, thereby winning the

game. Wiltse received official credit for pitching a no-hitter, but not a perfect game because

he hit one batter in the ninth inning and allowed a base runner as a result .

There are major “apples vs oranges” distinctions between the Galarraga game and

the Wiltse game including the following:

A) In the Wiltse game, after the allegedly erroneous call, the same batter was still

at the plate in the midst of a perfect game. Wiltse still had the ongoing opportunity

to retire the same batter and preserve his perfect game effort, but he did not

succeed in doing so. Instead, he hit the batter (HBP), ending his perfect game bid.

There is no known dispute on this point, or any known dispute that the HBP call was

itself an erroneous call. Hence unlike Galarraga, Wiltse made a pitching mistake

and was not perfect after the disputed call. By contrast, Galarraga made no such

pitching mistake at all. Rather, the Galarraga umpire simply made a mistaken call on

the final out which itself wrongfully put a runner on first base. Galarraga then

proceeded to retire the next batter as well, ending the game.

B) During the Wiltse game, the score of the game was a distinct factor from the

Galarraga game. In the Wiltse game, the score was tied 0-0 at the time of the 27

th

batter, and the game went into extra innings. As the game continued, ultimately the

Giants did score a run. Conversely, in the Galarraga case, the score of the game was

not tied at the time of the 27

th

batter. Therefore, in the 2010 Galarraga game, the

umpire’s call erroneous call, if made correctly, would have immediately ended the

game, rightfully securing the perfect game for Galarraga. In the Wiltse game,

however, the disputed ball/strike call – if rendered differently by the umpire --

would not and could not have ended the game , because the score was still 0-0. Thus,

even had Umpire Rigler called McQuillan out on strikes, the game would have

continued as a scoreless tie with an ongoing perfect game still pending but not yet

complete. In such a situation, with both a perfect game and the game itself on the

line, it is impossible to now go back in time and know after the fact how strategic

and psychological factors may have affected the ongoing effort, and whether Wiltse’s

strategic pitch selections, and the psychological pressure on Wiltse during a still-

continuing perfect game, would have been exactly the same as was the case after the

perfect game ended when Wiltse hit the batter. This is exactly the issue raised in

Point 7 in this presentation, and the difficulty in trying to reinstate any perfect

game by retroactively rectifying any questionable call which took place at any point

in the game before what would have otherwise been the undisputable 27

th

and final

batter in a perfect game where no prior or subsequent runner reached first base. In

56

Galarraga’s case, however, a correct call would have been the final out of the perfect

game, as there were no prior or subsequent runners who reached first base.

C) The entire controversial at bat in the 1908 Wiltse game– and the alleged

closeness of the disputed “ball vs strike” call on the 27

th

batter, is the subject of

unreliable century-old hearsay. There is no way in 2021 to know exactly what

happened with any degree of reasonable certainty. There is no video, and therefore

no objective evidence to independently corroborate or verify whether the umpire

clearly and convincingly made an incorrect call. Further, the fact that the Wiltse

game took place over 110 years ago further means that there are no present

eyewitnesses to even attempt to corroborate what did or did not occur. In the 2010

Galarraga game, however, there is undisputed corroborating video evidence that the

27

th

batter was clearly and convincingly put out beyond a reasonable doubt. There is

no reasonable way to conclude that the batter was safe, or even that the call was

close enough to create any reasonable debate on the issue.

D) In the 2010 Galarraga game, Umpire Jim Joyce immediately and publicly

admitted his call was wrong, and that Galarraga deserved credit for a perfect game.

Given the authority that an umpire has, it was honorable for Joyce to openly admit

that he made the wrong call so publicly to the point where he cried the next day while

facing Galarraga with the knowledge of the degree of his fault. Joyce further openly

admitted his error on various subsequent occasions as well. By contrast, in the 1908

Wiltse game, legend has it that Wiltse later claimed that the umpire admitted to him

that he made an error at some unspecified point in time after the fact, and even sent

him cigars as a result. The undersigned, however, located no specific corroborating

evidence to date verifying the stories that the Wiltse umpire ever publicly

admitted -- or even intended to publicly admit -- that he made an incorrect call in

the game, or that the call should be changed, or when this admission allegedly

happened, or how long after the incident this statement allegedly occurred, and

under what specific circumstances.

49

E) In the Galarraga game, the opposing batter (Donald) publicly stipulated his

belief that he had indeed been out. In the Wiltse game , there was no such known

concession by the batter.

49

The undersigned’s research has not uncovered thus far reliable corroborating authoritative sources beyond Wiltse

himself confirming that (a) that the umpire (a) ever publicly admitted he made an incorrect call or (b) ever sought for

the Wiltse call to be reversed, or (c) exactly when and where any such alleged public admission actually took place, if

ever. Further, while there are anecdotal stories that according to Wiltse, the umpire told him at some later point in time

that the call was incorrect, there was no reliable information found confirming when such statement was first allegedly

made (i.e., right after the game vs. years or decades after the fact), and most importantly, the circumstances under which

such statement was allegedly made (i.e, official public admission vs. private conversation or jestful joke at a baseball

banquet years after the fact, etc).

57

F) The Wiltse case involved a dispute over a ball vs strike call. The Galarraga case

did not involve a ball vs strike dispute. As set forth below, arguing balls and strikes is

strongly against MLB policy.

Accordingly, any remedial action which the Commissioner may potentially consider

taking in the Galarraga case has no practical impact on the 1908 Wiltse case , which

presents an entirely different “apples vs. oranges” collection of dramatically

distinguishable circumstances.

6B) The 1972 Milt Pappas Game

A second occasion where a pitcher lost a perfect game on a controversial call with

two out in the ninth inning occurred in the 1972 Milt Pappas game.

On September 8, 1972, Milt Pappas of the Chicago Cubs retired the first 26 San Diego

Padre batters he faced. One out away from a perfect game, Pappas faced the Padres’ 27

th

batter, Larry Stahl. Pappas started off throwing two strikes, but then went to a full 3-2

count on the batter by throwing three consecutive pitches near the borderline of the

strike zone. Pappas then threw his next pitch, which Home Plate Umpire Bruce

Froemming called as Ball 4, thereby walking Stahl and ending the perfect game bid.

Pappas was visibly upset and disagreed with the umpire, as he felt the pitch was close

enough to be called a strike rather than a ball. Pappas then retired the next batter,

thereby achieving a no-hitter but not a perfect game since he had walked Stahl.

As with the 1908 Wiltse game, there are radical differences between the 1972 Pappas

game and the 2010 Galarraga game, including the following:

A) In the 2010 Galarraga game, the umpire immediately admitted, within an

hour after the game, that he had erred and made a mistake and that Galarraga

deserved a perfect game. In the 1972 Pappas game, the umpire never agreed with

Pappas that he made a wrong call in the first place. Rather, the exact opposite

occurred, in that Umpire Froemming explicitly and consistently maintained the

58

correctness of his call for 44 years up through and including the time of Pappas’

death in 2016.

50

,

51

In fact, Froemming contended that after the game, Pappas

admitted to the Chicago Sun-Times: 'I know the pitches were balls, but he

(Froemming) could have given it to me.'

52

Conversely, in the Galarraga game,

Umpire Joyce immediately admitted that he was wrong in his call and essentially

that he made the call too quickly. He has given multiple interviews and publicly

apologized for his mistake with sincere regret. By contrast, the Pappas umpire

stood by his call for decades after the game, and still insists that he was correct in

his call that Pappas did not pitch a perfect game.

B) After the 2010 Galarraga game, the batter (Donald) also conceded his belief

that he had indeed been out. After the 1972 Pappas game, the batter (Stahl) did not

make such a concession.

C) In the 2010 Galarraga game, the available video evidence makes clear that

that 27

th

batter (Donald) was clearly and convincingly out beyond a reasonable

doubt, and there is simply no reasonable debate on the issue. Further, to the best of

the undersigned’s research and knowledge, no player, manager or umpire

connected with the Galarraga game has ever publicly or privately alleged a belief

that the batter was actually safe. Conversely, in the 1972 Pappas game, the

available video evidence objectively demonstrates a very close full count borderline

pitch, and a call which arguably could have been called either a ball or a strike. In

fact, many feel that the videotaped evidence confirms that the umpire’s call in the

Pappas game was correct. Either way, the clarity of the pitch as a ball vs a strike

cannot be clearly and convincingly determined beyond a reasonable doubt, and

the call by the home plate umpire in his professional discretion cannot possibly be

deemed undisputedly incorrect. Instead, the call was one of which reasonable

minds could legitimately differ. This, however, was simply not the case in the

Galarraga game, where the batter was plainly out by clear and convincing evidence,

beyond a reasonable doubt.

D) Unlike the 2010 Galarraga game, the disposition of the 27

th

batter in the

1972 Pappas game concerned a disputed “ball vs strike” call by the home plate

umpire. MLB has always treated “ball vs. strike” disputes much differently than

other types of disputes regarding an umpire’s call, precisely because such calls by

their very special nature inherently involve constant borderline decisions in an

umpire’s discretion that render them very distinct in character from other aspects of

50

Mike Bauman, Froemming Always Called it as He Saw it, MLB.Com (April 22, 2016), available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/bruce-froemming-recalls-milt-pappas-game-c173813094 (last visited December 1, 2021).

51

Milt Pappas RIP: Umpire Bruce Froemming and Len Kasper (June 1, 2014), available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHFbTOJ6mVU (last visited December 1, 2021).

52

Mike Bauman, Froemming Always Called it as He Saw it, MLB.Com (April 22, 2016), available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/bruce-froemming-recalls-milt-pappas-game-c173813094 (last visited December 1, 2021).

59

an umpire’s officiating duties. For this very reason, MLB has a special rule which

places major restrictions on a manager arguing an umpire’s discretion and decision

on a “ball vs strike” call. Pursuant to the comment to MLB Rule 8.02(a), “Players

leaving their position in the field or on base, or managers or coaches leaving the bench

or coaches box, to argue on balls and strikes will not be permitted. They should be

warned if they start for the plate to protest the call. If they continue, they will be

ejected from the game.”

53

Further, even after the 2014 expansion of instant replay

into MLB games, the policy continued that balls and strikes may not be reviewed.

54

It is further noted that on the MLB website, when discussing the Pappas game, author

Mike Bauman writes in his article, “Froemming Always Called it as he Saw it”, that, “The

funny thing about "most memorable" events is that they are rarely perfectly remembered,

and this case is one of those. If you watch the video now of the 3-2 pitch, it certainly looks

exactly where Froemming saw it 44 years ago: off the plate, outside.”

55

If Umpire Froemming had reversed the Pappas call after the fact while believing that

the pitch was a ball, this action may have called the integrity of the sport of baseball into

question, because although Pappas was remarkably close to pitching a perfect game, the

umpire did not then or now agree. In the case of Galarraga, however, it is the exact

opposite situation. If the call that Umpire Jim Joyce made is allowed to stand while Joyce

himself stipulates its inaccuracy, this arguably weakens the integrity of baseball itself.

Overall, while the main argument in the Galarraga case is to right a clear wrong,

Pappas’ main argument in his own case was that the call was close enough for it to go his

way, which is very different from changing a clearly erroneous call. While Pappas’ game

involved a sad situation because he was so close to perfection, it was not the same unfair

53

MLB Rule 8.02(a)

54

Paul Hagen, Torre to Skippers: Cool it with Ball, Strike Gripes, MLB.com (July 17, 2016), available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/joe-torre-to-managers-no-arguing-balls-strikes-c190209516, (last visited December 1,

2021) ( Major League Baseball Chief Baseball Officer expresses concern that managers are relying on the available

technology to argue from the dugout. Most plays on the field are subject to replay review and teams monitor video feeds

to help decide whether to challenge a call. Balls and strikes may not be reviewed).

55

Mike Bauman, “Froemming Always Called It As He Saw It,” (April 16, 2016) available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/bruce-froemming-recalls-milt-pappas-game-c173813094 (last visited December 1, 2021)

60

or unjust situation as in the case of Galarraga where the pitcher did have a perfect game

until an innocent but clear mistake by the umpire took it all away.

For the foregoing reasons, any restorative action which the Commissioner may

potentially consider taking in the Galarraga case has no practical impact on the 1972

Pappas game. The Pappas game presents an entirely different “apples vs. oranges”,

different and distinct collection of issues and circumstances .

In summary, the facts and circumstances of 2010 Galarraga game are very distinct

from all predecessor and successor perfect game scenarios in baseball’s storied past.

56

Therefore, any action by the Commissioner to reconsider and add Galarraga to the official

list of perfect game pitchers has no automatic “floodgate” effect relative to any other

“near-perfect” games in Major League history.

56

In addition to the 1908 Wiltse game and the 1972 Pappas game , there is a third game which some maintain ended unusually where

the 27

th

batter reached base with a perfect game in progress. In 2015, Washington Nationals’ pitcher Max Scherzer was pitching a perfect

game with two out in the ninth inning, when he accidentally hit the 27

th

batter, Jose Tabata, sending him to first base and losing the

perfect game. While some have speculated whether Tabata may have “leaned into the pitch”, however, there was no such finding by

any umpire or MLB official. Moreover, the pitcher Scherzer himself agreed that he hit the batter by his own fault. In the post-game

interview, Scherzer stated: "I just didn't finish the pitch. It backed up on me and clipped him," Scherzer said. "That's just one of those

things that happened. You just focus on what you can do next." See Jacob Emert, Scherzer Gets No-No! But Perfect? No Way,

Jose, MLB.com (June 20, 2015), available at https://www.mlb.com/news/scherzer-gets-no-no-but-perfect-no-way-jose-c131885446

(last visited December 1, 2021). Accordingly, Scherzer was near-perfect but not perfect, and his situation was distinguishable from the

Galarraga situation, in which the pitcher was in fact perfect and completed a perfect game but was denied recognition due to what the

umpire agreed was an indisputable error on his part regarding the 27

th

batter.

61

POINT 7

THE “DENKINGER DOCTRINE”:

WHY THE “STRATEGIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FLOW OF THE GAME” ARGUMENTS

DO NOT APPLY IN THE GALARRAGA CASE

As discussed, some baseball commenters have asked whether a reconsideration of the

Galarraga game would “open the floodgates” to applications about other questionable calls

in other past games. One such frequently discussed “past game” is Game 6 of the 1985

World Series, which is commonly referred to as the "Denkinger '' game. The circumstances

in the Denkinger game and the Galarraga game, however, raise completely distinct issues.

Specifically, the Galarraga game and the Denkinger game involved different points in

the game in which the historical call occurred. The Galarraga game involved what would

have been the last out of the game, while the Denkinger game did not. As such , even had

the disputed call in the Denkinger game been made differently, it is uncertain whether the

game itself would have ended with the same or a different result. The outcome of a game

cannot be predicted when an umpire makes an incorrect call before the 27th out since

there is (a) still a possibility of either team winning or losing, and (b) there are natural

“strategic and psychological flow of the game” considerations as well.

For example, in the Galarraga game, if hypothetically Umpire Jim Joyce made the

wrong call in the fifth inning rather than the ninth inning, both Galarraga and the Tigers’

team approach to every batter thereafter may not have necessarily been exactly the same

as what actually occurred while the perfect game was still in progress. The same holds true

for the Cleveland Indians as the opposing team. Based on both strategic and psychological

factors, the remainder of the game may have played out completely differently had the

perfect game no longer been ongoing. It is possible that many of the decisions made by

both teams – the Detroit Tigers and the Cleveland Indians -- were made in response to (or

at least subconsciously affected by) the ongoing perfect game and Galarraga’s performance.

Had the erroneous call by Joyce been made earlier in the game, it can be argued that the

62

decisions made by both teams – as well as actual execution and performance -- may have

simply played out differently. One cannot simply assume that every pitch and every at-bat

by every player thereafter would have been exactly the same as what actually occurred.

The “Denkinger” Doctrine: A Closer Look

Baseball history is filled with many close, debatable and controversial calls. One of

the most infamously controversial calls occurred in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series

between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Kansas City Royals. The Cardinals had a 3 games to

2 advantage, and were leading Game 6 by a 1-0 score in the bottom of the 9

th

inning.

Thus, St. Louis was only three outs away from wining the best-of seven World Series.

Kansas City’s leadoff batter, Jorge Orta, hit a ground ball and ran to first base. The first

base umpire, Don Denkinger, called Orta safe, even though the replay (which was not in

official use at the time), showed that Orta appeared to be out by half a step. The Royals

went on to rally and win the game 2-1, and then won Game 7 as well to win the World

Series, 4 games to 3. This situation gave rise to a debate over whether Major League

Baseball should have taken some type of remedial action.

Ultimately, however, there was little support for such action. Unlike Umpire Joyce’s

call in the Galarraga game, Umpire Denkinger's call in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series did

not take place on what would have been the game’s final batter. The Denkinger situation

further underscored a fundamental issue when reviewing a controversial call that took

place earlier in the game, rather than on what could have been the game’s final play. The

issues which can arise in such circumstances, and difficulties with even considering

reversing such calls after the fact, weigh against any such reversal based on what is

referenced herein as the “Denkinger Doctrine,” which means that when an erroneous call

takes place earlier than the potential final batter in the game, it is impossible to recreate

what would have happened thereafter had the call been made correctly. Specifically, even

if Denkinger’s incorrect call was hypothetically reversed after the fact, there would be no

possible way of ever knowing how the rest of Game 6 would have otherwise unfolded had

63

the correct call been made in the first place. The altering of a call rendered earlier in a

game may be highly problematic if such altering is based on the blanket assumption that

the remainder of the entire game thereafter would have somehow automatically played

out the same exact way, regardless of whether the disputed call was originally made

correctly in the first place.

For example, had Denkinger called Orta out at first base instead of safe, the Royals

may or may not have still otherwise rallied to tie or win Game 6 in the 9

th

inning. There is

no conceivable way to know how a different call (out) by Denkinger might have thereafter

impacted the subsequent strategic positions made by each team in the remainder of the

ninth inning or possibly beyond.

Additionally, beyond the possible strategic impact which a different call may have had

on the flow of the remaining portion of the game, there is also a secondary issue regarding

the possible psychological impact a different call may have had on the flow of the remainder

of the game as well. There is no way to ever know how the psychological impact of a

hypothetically different call by the umpire might have affected the pitcher, batters and

fielders relative to their performances.

In the Galarraga game, had the erroneous call by Umpire Joyce hypothetically occurred

in the 5th inning rather than in the 9

th

inning with two batters already out, the Denkinger

doctrine would weigh more heavily against retroactively awarding Galarraga credit as a

perfect game pitcher, based upon the possible effect that a “safe” call in the 5

th

inning

might have had on both the strategic and the psychological flow of the game. Had the

wrong call been made in the 5th inning, the perfect game at that point would have

instantly ended, along with all of the pressures and considerations that might have

otherwise been naturally building in the context of an ongoing perfect game. There are

several strategic decisions which each team may make thereafter during the flow of the

game that may be directly impacted by whether a perfect game is or is not taking place.

These decisions include, but may not be limited to:

64

(a) the pitcher’s pitch selection;

(b) the defensive alignment of the infielders and outfielders;

(c) the opposing manager’s choices of whether to use a pinch hitter;

(d) the opposing batter’s choice of whether to swing at certain pitches.

Moreover, there is logically a major psychological aspect of pitching through an

ongoing perfect game, where with each inning the pressure on the pitcher naturally and

predictably mounts, and the pitcher and all others involved in the game must perform and

deliver through such pressure without “choking”. Such pressure may potentially impact

and affect (e) the pitcher’s execution and delivery of pitches (f) the pitchers’ teammates in

the field and their execution on plays in support of the pitcher’s ongoing efforts; (g) the

opposing batters’ decisions in “taking” or “swinging” at a pitch, and (h) their execution in

attempting to break up the perfect game being pitched against them. The potential

“psychological” factors can weigh heavily on all sides – particularly on a pitcher during a

perfect game where one walk, hit batsman or fielding error can prove fatal to the effort. In

fact, the psychological factors are a major part of what makes pitching a perfect game so

extraordinary – i.e., the ability of an athlete to maintain composure and deliver an

incredible performance under stress.

The Galarraga game, however, did not involve a wrongful call in the fifth inning or any

other earlier inning. Rather, the mistaken call took place with two out in the ninth inning,

at a time when if made correctly would have and should have finalized a historic perfect

game with no subsequent batters at all. Hence, the Denkinger doctrine has no logical

applicability when applied to the Galarraga case, which concerned an erroneous call on

what would have been the final out with no other base runners either before or after the

mistaken call on the 27

th

batter. There is no relevance or need for speculation as to

what if any strategic or psychological impact a different call may have had on the

remainder of the game, because the game would have and should have been over on the

spot with the perfect game fully intact and earned by the pitcher. Further, the game did in

fact end with a “28

th

out” minutes later as well, with no potentially complicating factors of

65

any other subsequent batters reaching first base against Galarraga after the erroneous

call.

57

In the Galarraga game, for eight and two/third innings, the pitcher retired the first 26

batters. The pressure on Galarraga logically mounted with each successive batter as the

game progressed, as the realization most likely grew that that it was possible for him to

throw a perfect game and accomplish this rare and unimaginable feat. It can be presumed

that as the game approached later innings, Galarraga must have had an idea that the

perfect game was within reach. At this point, it likely increased the psychological

challenge and the stress level on the mound as the stakes kept growing significantly

higher in this extraordinary game. As the late, great Yogi Berra once noted in part,

"Baseball is 90 percent mental.”

The psychological impact that can fall on a pitcher during an ongoing perfect game may

be labeled as stress. Pitching a game and realizing that it could be a historic perfect game

can put immense stress and pressure on a pitcher, especially when an audience and other

spectators are watching and anticipating the possibility of perfection. According to the

National Institute of Mental Health, in some stressful situations, “your pulse quickens, you

breathe faster, your muscles tense, and your brain uses more oxygen and increases

activity."

58

If a pitcher faces a highly stressful situation such as pitching a perfect game, he

can possibly experience the aforementioned health challenges. The body reacting in such

a manner may cause one’s mind to function differently than under normal circumstances.

Not only is there a psychological aspect, but the entire body may react differently, which

may potentially affect an athlete’s overall performance.

57

As no other batters reached base after what should have been the 27

th

and final out of Galarraga’s perfect game, the Commissioner

need not focus on yet another “what if”, i.e., “what if the next (28

th

) batter after the umpire’s wrong call had reached first base on a

legitimate hit or a walk or an error?” While there can arguably be legitimate debate as to whether a pitcher should or should not receive

credit for a perfect game in such a different hypothetical circumstance, this hypothetical circumstance simply did not occur in the

Galarraga case and is therefore irrelevant to this particular analysis. To the contrary, the entire equitable focus on the Galarraga case,

deals specifically and appropriately with real events that did happen, rather than hypothetical, speculative events that have never

previously happened and may never happen in any game in the future.

58

See National Institute of Mental Health, “5 Things You Should Know About Stress,” https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publi-

cations/stress (last visited December 1, 2021)

66

In the Galarraga game, had the wrong “safe” call been made on an earlier batter, the

perfect game would have no longer been an issue, and all of the strategic and psychological

factors which naturally exist in an ongoing perfect game would have vanished. Therefore,

a pitcher who subsequently retires the remaining batters in a game after a perfect game is

no longer ongoing is not pitching and performing under the same circumstances as a

pitcher who is continuing to pitch and persevere during an ongoing perfect game. Further,

by applying the Denkinger doctrine, one cannot assume that such a game would have

played out the same exact way had a perfect game still been ongoing.

The same logic holds true with Game 6 of the 1985 World Series, and any other game

where an erroneous call was made earlier than what would have been the game’s final play

as in the Galarraga game. Nobody can say for sure that the events which unfolded

afterwards would have occurred in the exact same way had an earlier call been made

differently. Unlike the Denkinger game, however, the Galarraga game does not involve

this issue because (a) the disputed call should have been the final out, and (b) Galarraga

proceeded to retire the next (28

th

) batter as well.

As noted, cases must be decided by facts. The exceptional and extraordinary facts of the

Galarraga game render the Denkinger doctrine – and the events surrounding the wrong

call in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series -- as very distinct from the issues raised in the

Galarraga case. The Denkinger doctrine and “flow of the game” considerations do not bar

the Commissioner in this case from equitably granting appropriate remedial relief in the

Galarraga case, and appropriately granting official recognition of Galarraga as a perfect

game pitcher in the historical records of Major League Baseball.

67

POINT 8

THE ROGER MARIS DOCTRINE (1961-1991):

AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

SHOULD NEVER WAIT TOO LONG TO FINALLY “DO THE RIGHT THING”

Historically, there are instances in which players have not been fully recognized for

their honorable and even historic athletic achievements until years after the fact. This has

resulted, occasionally, in posthumous recognition of these achievements. This history is

relevant when reviewing the controversy surrounding the Galarraga game.

In May, 2020, as part of the tenth anniversary of Galarraga’s game, The Athletic

magazine interviewed Galarraga regarding his hope that someday, Major League Baseball

would finally agree to recognize him as a perfect game pitcher. Said Galarraga: “Why wait

for so long? I don’t want to die, and then they’ll be like, ‘You know what, he threw a perfect

game.’”

59

In the same Athletic interview, Umpire Jim Joyce emphatically sided with Galarraga’s

hope for MLB’s official recognition of his achievement, stating, “I agree with him . . . I agree.

Because he did it.”

60

Implicitly, Galarraga’s quote reflects a clear concern that Major League Baseball may

inevitably but unfortunately violate what is referenced in this submission as the “Roger

Maris” doctrine, named in honor of former New York Yankees outfielder Roger Maris.

The “Maris doctrine” is a phrase utilized in this analysis to address a situation where an

individual or organizational body with decision-making authority – such as Major League

59

Cody Stavenhagen, , “Beyond Perfect: Armando Galarraga, 10 years after the call”, The Athletic (May 2020), available

at https://theathletic.com/1722128/2020/05/12/beyond-perfect-armando-galarraga-10-years-after-the-call/ (last

visited December 1, 2021)

60

Ibid.

68

Baseball -- unjustifiably waits too long to finally “do the right thing” and take remedial

action which could have been taken years earlier.

As discussed in detail below, a major example of such an occurrence is the “single

season home run record” set by the New York Yankee Roger Maris. In 1961, Maris hit 61

home runs, and became the first player to surpass Babe Ruth’s long-standing single-season

record of 60 home runs set in 1927. The issue was that Maris had accomplished his record

in more games than Ruth. As a result, MLB declined for 30 years to give Maris full

recognition of the single-season home run record, and initially only recognized his

achievement as taking place in an extended season with more games than Ruth’s 1927

season.

Three decades later, following a 1991 article in the New Yorker magazine highlighting

MLB’s history of denying Maris full recognition for his athletic achievement

61

, the

Commissioner and MLB’s then-newly assembled Committee on Historical Accuracy voted

to finally remove the distinction and award the single-season record fully to Maris, who

was already deceased and therefore was never able to enjoy and be part of this very late

remedial action by MLB.

The Roger Maris Doctrine: A Closer Look

In 1961, the Major League Baseball schedule expanded from a 154-game regular

season schedule to a 162-game regular season schedule. During the season, it became

patently clear to even the most casual baseball fans and observers that New York Yankees

outfielder Roger Maris was on a strong path to possibly hit 61 home runs and break the

historic and hallowed single season home run record of 60 home runs , previously set in

1927 by the legendary and beloved former Yankee, Babe Ruth.

61

Lee Benson, “Sports Writer Did for Maris what Frick refused to Do,” Deseret News (September 5, 1991), available at

https://www.deseret.com/1991/9/14/18941169/sports-writer-did-for-maris-what-frick-refused-to-do (last visited

December 1, 2021) ((Commissioner) Vincent said the impetus for the change was an article about Maris’ record by Roger

Angell in the New Yorker).

69

In 1961, the Commissioner of Baseball was Ford Frick, who was a famously close

friend of Ruth during Ruth’s lifetime. In July, 1961 – after Maris had already hit 35 home

runs and was en route to potentially breaking Ruth’s single-season record --

Commissioner Frick announced at a public press conference his advance position that

unless Maris surpassed Ruth’s 60 home runs within the first 154 games of the season,

MLB should recognize Maris’ achievement in the record books separately from Ruth’s

record, with some "distinctive mark"

next to Maris’ achievement indicating it had been

done in a 162-game season, rather than a 154 game season. The use of an asterisk (*) as

such a mark was suggested at the press conference by then-New York Daily News

sportswriter Dick Young.

Ultimately, Maris did surpass Ruth’s single-season home run record in 1961 and hit

61 home runs. Further, he had reached 60 home runs in more games but fewer actual at-

bats than it had taken Ruth to reach the same mark. Nonetheless, Major League Baseball

declined to give Maris full recognition for his clear record-breaking achievement. Instead,

for the following 30 years, Major League Baseball required two separate entries in

baseball’s official record books for home runs in a season, indicating that Maris hit 61

home runs in a 162-game season and Ruth hit 60 home runs in a 154-game season, without

regard to actual at bats. Still further, while no asterisk was placed beside Maris’ name in

the official record book, the mere concept of an asterisk following the Frick press

conference took on a highly negative connotation for many baseball observers and fans, as

a perceived diminishment and discrediting of Maris’ projected accomplishment. Further,

MLB’s ultimate decision to use two different entries in its official records to deny full

recognition to Maris’ feat worked heavily against MLB in the eyes of many baseball fans.

To some, MLB’s position seemed unfair and inequitable, and inconsistent with positive

embracement and celebration of genuine athletic achievement .

Finally in 1991 -- thirty years after Maris’ record-breaking season, then-MLB

Commissioner Fay Vincent announced the administrative decision that pursuant to an

official change in MLB’s position on the matter, Maris would thereafter be listed in the

official record book as the record holder for home runs in a single season. Said Vincent:

70

“This decision does not diminish or demean the contributions of Babe Ruth to the game of

baseball. . . He is surely the most famous player in the history of the game and will remain

so for generations to come. This change allows Roger Maris to receive the recognition he

deserves."

62

Accordingly, after 30 years, MLB realized its own serious delay in failing to recognize

Maris’ achievement, and finally took the conciliatory position at the time that it was not

too late to administratively adjust its position on records of historical events in order to

“do the right thing” and support rather than dilute Maris’ historical achievement and well-

earned place in baseball history. Thus, after three decades of official front office

resistance, MLB finally and retroactively revised its official record book of statistics in an

exceptional and extraordinary circumstance.

Unfortunately for Roger Maris, however, MLB’s 1991 reversal of its 1961 position

came far too late. Maris died in 1985, six years before MLB’s remedial action on his case.

Thus, 30 years of bureaucratic inflexibility had won out over reasonableness in

permanently denying Roger Maris the opportunity to personally experience -- during his

own lifetime -- the joy of having Major League Baseball “do the right thing” by fairly and

fully recognizing and honoring his accomplishment of performing one of baseball’s most

historically significant and timeless feats.

63

The Maris doctrine supports timely rather than untimely remedial action to address

and correct prior wrongs. Notably, however, Major League Baseball’s delay in fully

officially recognizing Roger Maris’ record and accomplishment until well after Maris’ death

62

Deseret News, Baseball Drops the Asterisk* From Maris’ Record (September 5, 1991), available at

https://www.deseret.com/1991/9/5/18939671/baseball-drops-the-asterisk-from-maris-record (last visited December

1, 2021).

63

Ironically, Maris’ single season record of 61 home runs was broken shortly after 1991 MLB’s reversal of position,

when multiple players surpassed Maris’ total during what many consider the “peak steroid years” of 1998-2001 . Such

record-breaking achievements were met with significant public skepticism, but were not marked with any asterisks by

MLB, which has upheld all such records surpassing Maris’ former record-setting total.

71

is not an isolated instance of MLB waiting too long to take remedial action in

appropriately recognizing and honoring its own athletes. For example, prior to Jackie

Robinson’s entry into the Major Leagues in 1947, there was racial segregation in baseball

and separate leagues known as the “Negro Leagues.”

64

In December, 2020, MLB

Commissioner Rob Manfred announced that Major League Baseball was finally and

retroactively granting “long overdue recognition” by bestowing Major League Status

“within the historical record” upon seven professional Negro Leagues that operated

between 1920 and 1948. As part of the decision, MLB and the Elias Sports Bureau – MLB’s

official statistician – commenced a review process to “determine the full scope of the

designation’s effects of records and statistics”. Accordingly, as of 2021, all past baseball

statistics of the affected players can now conceivably be retroactively folded into the MLB’s

all-time leader board, and batting averages of players who played in both the Negro

Leagues and the Major Leagues, such as Willie Mays, may incur statistical alterations to

their career batting averages and other statistics.

65

The decision by Major League Baseball to finally adjust its statistical records

retroactively in this fashion was reported by National Public Radio on December 16, 2020.

See “MLB Recognizes Negro Leagues as “Major League” – Correcting a ‘Longtime

Oversight.”

66

Said John Thorn, MLB’s official historian, “For more than 3,400 players, very

few of whom are alive, their families will now be able to say their records were included

among white Major Leaguers of the period,” Thorn said. “There’s no distinction to be made.

They were all big leaguers.”

67

64

See Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, https://www.nlbm.com/

65

Anthony Castrovince, MLB adds Negro Leagues to Official Records, MLB.com (December 16, 2020), available at

https://www.mlb.com/news/negro-leagues-given-major-league-status-for-baseball-records-stats (last visited

December 1. 2021)

66

Brakkton Booker, MLB Recognizes Negro Leagues As ‘Major League” – Correcting a ‘Longtime Oversight , NPR, available

at https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/947226542/mlb-corrects-longtime-oversight-now-recognizes-negro-league-as-

major-league, (last visited December 1, 2021)

67

See note 65 , supra.

72

While the 2020 decision by MLB to finally “do the right thing” in this instance was a

positive one, this development is also in reality another example of the negative impact of

MLB simply waiting too long to act. The official records of Major League Baseball were for

generations flawed, in that MLB failed to take reasonable retroactive action relative to its

record books. Instead, rigid inflexibility had for decades won out over principles of equity

in the record-keeping process.

Through inaction, Major League Baseball unfortunately and unreasonably deprived

countless deserving players of the hard-earned opportunity to finally experience and

enjoy official retroactive MLB recognition while they were still alive. Posthumous

recognition can be very bittersweet for surviving family members who know how much

such recognition would have mattered to their lost loved ones during their own lifetimes.

In the context of fairness and equity, MLB itself admitted that the revision was long-

overdue and that these players deserved to be honored for their achievements.

Unfortunately, the majority of players who were recognized were no longer here to

appreciate the moment. The losses by these athletes were of course far more significant

and drastic than those incurred by Maris or Galarraga, because due to segregation, their

entire career performances were not given full inclusion in the MLB records until 2020.

Moving forward, what can be learned from baseball history is that MLB has itself at

times slowly recognized and exercised its own equitable discretion to retroactively

review, reconsider, re-evaluate, and adjust its official record book of statistics in

meritorious circumstances. The Maris doctrine stands for the proposition that as a matter

of public policy, Major League Baseball should never wait too long to do the right thing.

The Maris doctrine further supports MLB giving particular attention to important and

relevant cases of athletes who have achieved the right to professional recognition and

distinction in timely fashion, while they are still alive and can enjoy the honors rightfully

earned. Achievements deserve to be recognized within a timely manner.

In relation to the Galarraga case, Galarraga has lived without the official recognition

of his perfect game from MLB. In the case of the 28 out perfect game, the Commissioner of

73

MLB can invoke the Maris doctrine and presently rather than posthumously re-open and

review the concept of officially recognizing Galarraga’s perfect game during this deserving

athlete’s own lifetime.

Additional Lesson From The 1961-1991 Roger Maris Case:

A Positive Footnote (1) Rather Than A Negative Asterisk (*)

Is Preferable In Officially Recognizing Galarraga’s Perfect Game

An asterisk is a symbol (*) used to mark printed or written text, typically as a reference

to an annotation or to stand for omitted matter. In baseball’s history , however, the asterisk

has historically and culturally come to take on a highly negative character, sometimes

demeaning the achievement to which it is attached in a delegitimizing fashion. This

cultural reality stems from the unfortunate and socially regrettable administrative episode

in baseball concerning Roger Maris -- who surpassed the record of Babe Ruth, but whose

achievement was not truly recognized by MLB until 30 years later, and six years after

Maris’ death.

In the case of Galarraga, one way that Major League Baseball can address the injustice

after 11 years is to include him on its official list of perfect game pitchers with a positive

footnote – and not with a negative asterisk which has such a diminishing and discrediting

history. Unlike an asterisk, a positive and historically relevant numeric footnote can help

constructively explain for the sake of posterity the objectively special circumstances of

Galarraga’s achievement, and a decision by MLB to finally and retroactively right a wrong

and honorably include this feat on the list of perfect games in MLB’s official records for all

posterity. A proposed example of how such a positive footnote can appear in the official

record book is set forth on pages 24-27 of this submission.

74

POINT 9

IN RECONSIDERING THE GALARRAGA CASE, MLB HAS A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY

TO SOCIALLY INFLUENCE MILLIONS OF SPORTS FANS BY DEMONSTRATING THE

IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS IN SPORTS AND IN LIFE

“As American as baseball”. This is a phrase that many have used to reference what was

once the most popular sport in the United States. In fact, a New Jersey court once formally

recognized baseball as a “piece of public Americana”. See Nat. Org. for Women v. Little

League Baseball, 127 N.J. Super 522 (App. Div. 1974), which acknowledges baseball’s social

and cultural significance in our country. This judicial decision, which was in the first in the

nation to formally permit girls to participate with boys in Little League Baseball,

emphasized the social significance of baseball -- and implicitly other organized youth

sports leagues as well -- as a cultural tool for positive childhood development and inclusion.

Further, the Nat. Org. for Women court recognized that the value of Little League

baseball in our society extended far beyond simply teaching children to hit, field and catch.

More importantly, participation in Little League is designed to develop qualities in

participating children of good citizenship, sportsmanship, and maturity of character. Id. at

534. Such character is built from participating in a competitive team endeavor, along with

the self-discipline inevitably generated in harvesting proper emotional attitudes about

winning and losing. Id. at 540 (Meanor , J.A.D., dissenting).

Similarly, the Major League Players’ Alumni Association states in in its mission

statement that “the traditions of baseball reflect values in society that are of the highest

standards. Our Association is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the game through former

Major League players. We achieve our beliefs by demonstrating through our leadership our

commitment to preserving core human values, promoting passion for the game of baseball,

75

globally showcasing its values, heritage, and heroes, and by serving the unique needs of

players.”

68

There are other related values in American life that are near and dear to our society as

well, such as justice, fairness, equity, and second chances for organizations – such as

Major League Baseball—to display support for such values by responding to exceptional

and extraordinary circumstances and “doing the right thing.”

In the Galarraga case, Major League Baseball can set a true example for American

children, consistent with teaching and building good citizenship, sportsmanship, and

character. Remedial action by MLB can show that when an athlete such as Galarraga

works very hard to achieve dreams, these dreams can come true. Further, despite being

previously deprived of official MLB recognition for his historic pitching performance,

Galarraga nonetheless showed a historic amount of sportsmanship and character in his

response. He was kind and respectful when the umpire made the wrong call. He showed

children how they should act when something upsetting happens, and how one should act on

the baseball field. This is an inspirational, respectful, and graceful example of all of the

qualities that Little League Baseball teaches its players, and which Major League Baseball

can now in turn embrace through a socially valuable, remedial, and constructively

educational review and response. The recognition of Galarraga’s perfect game as an official

perfect game is a chance for the MLB to rectify a past injustice and demonstrate its

commitment to fairness and equity which is so valued by the American public.

There is no denying that the popularity of baseball has declined over the past two

decades. Historically, the American public genuinely embraced baseball. Somewhere along

the line, however, the relationship started to change. Slowly but surely, baseball began

losing its fan base.

68

See Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association Mission Statement, Association.

https://www.mlb.com/mlbpaa/about/mission

76

In recent years, the media has repeatedly reported how the nation is losing not only its

fascination, but even basic interest, in Major League Baseball. For example, it was reported

that , the television ratings for the 2020 World Series dropped from 44.2 million in 1978 to

a record low 9.8 million viewers.

69

Over the past decade, some of the recent journalistic

headlines on the subject have included: “How Does Baseball Address its Declining

Popularity”;

70

“Why MLB Attendance is Down Over 7% since 2015”;

71

“Why Baseball is

Losing its Popularity Across the Nation”;

72

“No One Cares about Baseball”

73

; “The State of

Baseball: The Grand Old Game Needs some Fresh Ideas”;

74

The Gradual Decline of Baseball

Popularity”;

75

“The Decline of Baseball and why it matters”

76

; “Baseball’s Future: Declining

69

Patrick Saunders, The State of Baseball: The Grand Old Game Needs Fresh Ideas, The Denver Post ( March 28, 2021),

available at https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/28/the-state-of-baseball-game-needs-fresh-ideas/ (Last visited

December 1, 2021)

70

Wyatt Allsup, How Does Baseball Address its Declining Popularity? Daily Trojan ( January 27, 2021), available at

https://dailytrojan.com/2021/01/27/running-the-break-how-does-mlb-address-its-declining-popularity-the-answer-is-

in-the-baseball-

itself/#:~:text=Total%20attendance%20numbers%20for%20MLB,9.8%20million%20viewers%20in%202020. (last

visited December 1, 2021)

71

Maury Brown, Terrible teams to Rising Costs: Why MLB Attendance is Down Over 7% since 2015. Forbes,(October 24,

2019 ) available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/10/04/from-terrible-teams-to-rising-costs-and-

more-why-mlb-attendance-has-been-down-over-7-since-2015/?sh=14dc1831a8da

(last visited December 1, 2021)

72

Matthew Gonyea, Why Baseball is Losing its Popularity Across the Nation. The BFA Mercury, (January 11, 2021),

available at https://bfamercury.org/3827/opinion/why-baseball-is-losing-popularity-across-the-nation/ (last visited

December 1, 2021)

73

Craig Calaterra, No One Cares about Baseball, MLB. NBC Sports (October 24, 2013), available at

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/10/24/no-one-cares-about-baseball/, (last visited December 1, 2021)

74

Patrick Saunders, The State of Baseball: The Grand Old Game Needs Fresh Ideas, The Denver Post ( March 28, 2021),

available at https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/28/the-state-of-baseball-game-needs-fresh-ideas/ (Last visited

December 1, 2021)

75

Matthew Corwan, The Gradual Decline of Baseball Popularity. University of Alabama ( February 16, 2016 ), available at

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/does-decline-baseball-mean-decline-america, (Last visited December 1, 2021)

76

Laura Hanby Hudgens, The Decline of Baseball and Why it Matters., Huffington Post, (April 8, 2016, updated December 6,

2017), available at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-decline-of-baseball-a_b_9630782: (last visited December 1,

2021).

77

Attendance and Shrinking Stadiums to Match (Gabe Lacques, USA Today, August 8, 2019;

77

Why No One Watches Baseball Anymore

78

As recently noted in The Nation in 2019:

. . . A recent Gallup poll shows that only 9 percent of people in the United States are listing

baseball as their favorite sport. That’s the lowest number since Gallup started asking the

question in 1937. Recent statistics also show that ballpark attendance is down in 19 of the 30

stadiums around the league. . . . Baseball also has the oldest average fan base of any of the

major sports. As Market Watch wrote in 2017, “The average age of a baseball viewer is 57, up

from 52 in 2006. There won’t be a youth movement, either, as just 7% of baseball’s audience is

below age 18.

79

While there are various theories for the decline, some focus on the concept that

baseball has become archaic in many ways. While reasonable minds may of course differ on

this point, it is respectfully contended that MLB’s ongoing rigid and inflexible position on the

Galarraga game may in fact provide a relevant example of a sport whose administrative

leaders might be losing touch with the public and the very spirit of the game they are

entrusted to promote and support.

Recognizing Galarraga’s performance as a perfect game would be an opportunity for

the MLB to show exactly why baseball was America’s National Pastime. Baseball used to be

popular in our nation because it reflected many aspects of American life. American core

values include honesty, fairness, and sportsmanship -- qualities that the MLB has the

opportunity to exhibit by recognizing Galarraga’s perfect game. Armando Galarraga took

losing his perfect game gracefully, with exemplary sportsmanship and respect for Umpire

Jim Joyce regardless of his mistake. Umpire Joyce acted equally respectfully as well. Now it

is Major League Baseball’s opportunity to act gracefully and with exemplary sportsmanship

as well.

77

Gabe Lacques, Baseball’s Future: Declining Attendance and Shrinking Stadiums to Match USA Today, (August 8, 2019)

available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/08/08/mlb-attendance-stadiums-future/1941614001/

(last visited December 1, 2021)

78

Dave Zirin, Why No One Watches Baseball Anymore. The Nation, (July 2, 2019), available at

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-no-one-watches-baseball-anymore-mlb-red-sox-yankees/

(last visited December 1, 2021).

79

Ibid.

78

POINT 10

REVISITING THE DUROCHER DOCTRINE (1946):

IN BASEBALL, MUST NICE GUYS ALWAYS FINISH LAST?

In Major League Baseball, there is a famous proverb attributed to former Brooklyn

Dodger manager Leo Durocher from 1946 that “Nice Guys Finish Last.”

80

Baseball is a sport which prides itself in supporting honor and good sportsmanship.

As referenced earlier in this analysis, the Galarraga game produced two heroes: (1)

Armando Galarraga and (2) Jim Joyce, who together demonstrated honor and high

sportsmanship in a manner which was applauded and exalted not only by the National

Baseball Hall of Fame, but by the media and millions of fans throughout the world. Notably,

Galarraga refused to criticize Umpire Joyce or the call, and shook Joyce’s hand at home

plate the following day in of incredible maturity and discipline as an athlete and public

figure.

By way of comparison, when one looks at the video of the previously referenced Pine

Tar game, batter George Brett’s response to the umpire’s call voiding his home run differed

from the way Galarraga handled matters. In the Pine Tar game, when the umpire called

Brett out, Brett stormed out of the dugout at full speed, racing toward the umpire with

his arms flailing wildly and his face flushing purple with rage. Several of Brett’s

teammates had to physically restrain him from advancing further toward the umpire. Self-

control was visibly non-existent, and Brett was ultimately ejected from the game after the

fact.

Ultimately in the Pine Tar game, however, Major League Baseball reversed the

umpire’s call against the rageful Brett, over the umpire’s objection, and reinstated his

home run. In doing so, the Royals’ loss become a victory, and the Yankees victory became a

loss. Conversely, in the 28-out Perfect Game, Major League Baseball complimented

80

Nice Guys Finish Last, by Leo Durocher, with Ed Linn, Simon & Schuster, 1975, renders it as "Take a look at them. All nice

guys. They’ll finish last. Nice guys – finish last."

79

Galarraga’s historic sportsmanship, but still declined to reverse the umpire’s call, despite

the umpire’s consent for reversal.

In the Galarraga game, would the case for reversal of the umpire’s call have been

more persuasive to MLB if Galarraga -– like Brett -- had ragefully stormed towards the

umpire as a crowd of his teammates fought to restrain him and hold him back in front of

a stadium crowd of adults and children? Was Leo Durocher right? Must “nice guys” finish

last in baseball ?

Maybe . . . . or maybe not. That decision is now ultimately up to Major League

Baseball’s Commissioner. But over eleven years after the one of the most infamous,

controversial, and unfortunate circumstances in sports history, the Commissioner has the

present ability to exercise discretion and finally provide the sport and its fan base with a

much-needed demonstration that – at least in this instance -- Leo Durocher’s theory was

wrong. The Commissioner can and hopefully will do the right thing, and act to finally add

the name of Armando Galarraga to Major League Baseball’s official list of perfect game

pitchers for his truly perfect pitching performance of June 2, 2010.

ffi

tbv.t:rrlrl^rlltl

I

CEreE