My novel A PITCH FOR JUSTICE is discounted for the next few days down from $3.99 to just .99 cents. This is a realistic and balanced novel about violence in sports and the accountability of players to the criminal justice system.
For any of you who haven't read my novel, it is on discount for the next few days at just .99 cents. Read the updated version for less than a buck.
amzn.to/My3Q0f A PITCH FOR JUSTICE
Friday, April 25, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
MLB's instant replay needs a make-over
MLB's instant replay needs revamping
I used to be a purist when it came to baseball. Then I accepted interleague play. I even got to enjoy it. I still don't like the DH but I can understand its popularity for fans and players(especially their union).
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball Ken Rosenthal writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its MLB's instant replay needs revamping
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball Ken Rosenthal writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its MLB's instant replay needs revamping
I used to be a purist when it came to baseball. Then I accepted interleague play. I even got to enjoy it. I still don't like the DH but I can understand its popularity for fans and players(especially their union).
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its fans.
I was totally on board with the new instant replay rule that went into effect in 2014. I always felt that umpires were given too much deference in the game and very little supervision. Their union seemed impenetrable.
And now comes instant replay to remedy that imbalance right? Well, based on the games thus far, the answer is a resounding no. Noted baseball writer expressed his dissatisfaction in an article today.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ne...
He referenced two instances where the replay officials were clearly wrong in the decision making process. I have personally seen two instances where I thought the on field decision should have been overturned but they weren't. Why? Because the standard of proof required to overturn the umpire's initial decision is too demanding.
It requires the four officials viewing the challenge to be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. In essence this gives undue deference to the umpire's initial decision once again. Why? My sense is that it lessens the failure rate of how many bad calls are really made on a daily basis. Sure it's a tough call on bang-bang plays but these guys get paid well.
If we are looking for the right decision,rather than preserving face for the umpires, the standard for review should be "whether there is a preponderance of evidence" to prove the initial call was in error.
That is the standard used every day in civil trials throughout the country. People's lives are greatly impacted by the decisions of juries and judges using that standard. It is a fair one. It simply means the fact finder is satisfied that the scales dip in favor of one side by 51%.
In my opinion that standard is what is needed to better utilize the tools of instant replay rather than assuage the umpires' union. Let's get the calls right for baseball and its fans.
Friday, April 11, 2014
FORMER WORLD SERIES PITCHER IS IN FEDERAL COURT CASE
If you aren't a baseball fan, it's unlikely you will recall Brandon Backe. He had a relatively brief and undistinguished career in the majors. Originally a second baseman, he converted to pitching in 2002.
He rose to national prominence in 2004 when he was the winning pitcher for the Houston Astros on the last day of the season and beat the Braves. That gave the Astros a spot in the playoffs.
In game 5 of the NL Championship series he had a no hitter for 6 innings but settled for a one hit eight inning performance and the win. (But the Cardinals went on to become the NL Champs in 2004). Backe also had a win in game 4 of the 2005 World Series but the Astros lost to the Chicago White Sox.
By 2009 Backe's performance was below par, after a series of arm and shoulder ailments, and he was released by the Astros in early 2009.
Yet Backe is back in the news. He and 11 other people were arrested after an Oct. 5, 2008, altercation at a resort's swimming pool bar in Galveston during a wedding reception. Backe was charged with interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest. ( A grand jury later declined to indict him in 2009.
Backe is suing the Galveston police department in Houston federal court for a violation of his civil rights. He testified recently that the police used excessive force against him and that he sustained severe shoulder injuries from kicking and shoving by the police.
Backe is arguing that those injuries prevent him from doing the most simple tasks such as tucking his shirt into his pants. He attributes his release from baseball to that incident in 2008 because of his inability to pitch.
Backe is seeking 15 million dollars( a nice tidy figure)for redress. But he may have a hard time proving his case. Even if the jury is convinced that the police used excessive force, he still has to prove a causal relationship between that episode and his pitching woes.
That is the difficult hurdle for him because his record as a pitcher shows in 2006,after two starts, he went onto the disabled list for three months. He returned in late July, but on August 19 he sprained a ligament in his right elbow. This injury required Tommy John surgery, which was successfully performed on September 7, 2006. So he missed most of 2006.
In 2007 he didn't pitch again until September but he did win four starts. Then in 2008 he had an awful year despite being healthy. He won 9 and lost 14 and had a 6.05 ERA. He also led the league in giving up 36 home runs. Then the Galveston incident took place in October of that year. He was age 30 at that time.
So the jury will have to find that excessive force was used, that Backe at age 30 still had plenty of good years left in his arm and shoulder, and that but for the injuries he would have earned large sums as a professional pitcher. Those will be hard for a jury to find.Stay tuned
If you aren't a baseball fan, it's unlikely you will recall Brandon Backe. He had a relatively brief and undistinguished career in the majors. Originally a second baseman, he converted to pitching in 2002.
He rose to national prominence in 2004 when he was the winning pitcher for the Houston Astros on the last day of the season and beat the Braves. That gave the Astros a spot in the playoffs.
In game 5 of the NL Championship series he had a no hitter for 6 innings but settled for a one hit eight inning performance and the win. (But the Cardinals went on to become the NL Champs in 2004). Backe also had a win in game 4 of the 2005 World Series but the Astros lost to the Chicago White Sox.
By 2009 Backe's performance was below par, after a series of arm and shoulder ailments, and he was released by the Astros in early 2009.
Yet Backe is back in the news. He and 11 other people were arrested after an Oct. 5, 2008, altercation at a resort's swimming pool bar in Galveston during a wedding reception. Backe was charged with interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest. ( A grand jury later declined to indict him in 2009.
Backe is suing the Galveston police department in Houston federal court for a violation of his civil rights. He testified recently that the police used excessive force against him and that he sustained severe shoulder injuries from kicking and shoving by the police.
Backe is arguing that those injuries prevent him from doing the most simple tasks such as tucking his shirt into his pants. He attributes his release from baseball to that incident in 2008 because of his inability to pitch.
Backe is seeking 15 million dollars( a nice tidy figure)for redress. But he may have a hard time proving his case. Even if the jury is convinced that the police used excessive force, he still has to prove a causal relationship between that episode and his pitching woes.
That is the difficult hurdle for him because his record as a pitcher shows in 2006,after two starts, he went onto the disabled list for three months. He returned in late July, but on August 19 he sprained a ligament in his right elbow. This injury required Tommy John surgery, which was successfully performed on September 7, 2006. So he missed most of 2006.
In 2007 he didn't pitch again until September but he did win four starts. Then in 2008 he had an awful year despite being healthy. He won 9 and lost 14 and had a 6.05 ERA. He also led the league in giving up 36 home runs. Then the Galveston incident took place in October of that year. He was age 30 at that time.
So the jury will have to find that excessive force was used, that Backe at age 30 still had plenty of good years left in his arm and shoulder, and that but for the injuries he would have earned large sums as a professional pitcher. Those will be hard for a jury to find.Stay tuned
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)