2010 Letter from Ralph Nader to Mr. Bud Selig, Commissioner of Baseball

Posted: July 13, 2010

Mr. Bud Selig

Commissioner of Baseball

245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor

New York, NY 10167

July 13, 2010

Dear Mr. Selig:

Now that you have had over a month to absorb and digest the reactions to what a sports writer called the worst umpire call since the 1850s, it is time for you to respect the vast majority of the fans, players and coaches who either believe that umpire Jim Joyce's call should be reversed as false or who have no objection to such a ruling.

Let's review the situation. The video clearly shows that Armando Gallarraga of the Detroit Tigers received the throw on a grounder for the last out in the ninth inning before the batter reached the base. Umpire Jim Joyce recognized, to his everlasting credit, in many ways his clear error. His best sentence was "I took a perfect game away from that kid."

Baseball's Rule 9.02(a) states that teams cannot question an umpire's judgment. Rule 9.02(c) states that "no umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire masking it." Umpire Joyce was immediately visited by two other umpires and an angry manager Jim Leyland right after the call. Mr. Joyce did not avail himself of the rule and, despite the crowd's and players' adverse reaction did not concede until he saw the video. As every fan knows, umpires do ask each other to check the call if another umpire has a better view such as after a batter's checked swing.

At this juncture, some commentators said that baseball is an imperfect game and imperfect umpiring is part of that characterization. Beg to differ. Only the players are the game. The umpires are ruling on the game from the outside.

Electronic distant replay is already being used for a variety of ambiguous home run situations, in which cases umpires have been over-ruled. There is also the issue of George Brett's bat where the umpire was over-ruled.

In this case, an over-rule is not initiating a precedent. Rather the matter is now in your hands where you possess absolute authority to correct a wrong decision that will go down in history as Exhibit One against the principles of baseball where the merits and the facts are the dominant features of outcomes.

Why prolong the umpire's agony and upset all those who do not want that missed call to diminish the confidence of fans in their umpires? Why prolong the pain of the pitcher and his immense circle of fans who do not want his perfect performance to go down in baseball history as a lie?

Fortunately, your reaction that day was not specific enough for you to have to over-rule yourself. You merely promised to "consult with all appropriate parties, including our two unions and the Special Committee for On-Field Matters." You left the door open for reflection and final decision, notwithstanding rumors and leaks to the contrary.

Awaiting a larger decision as to how much more extensive major league baseball wants instant replay to register beyond disputed home runs, you can restrict your decision to reinstate Armanda Galarraga's perfect game narrowly to that set of facts. This includes the fact that the outcome of the game would not have been changed, given the 28th out. The Cleveland Indians would certainly see the fairness of your video-driven correction. Public perception regarding a just outcome for only the 21st such perfect game in baseball history would be restored.

In this matter no one can credibly claim the slippery slope argument toward any game-slowing routine instant replays such as balls and strikes. You hold the power of precision here.

As one fan, writing in the New York Times declared:

"Parents of young baseball players are trying to make it a teachable moment out of the blown call that deprived a young pitcher of a perfect game.

"The pitcher has been gracious beyond belief, and his bemused smile will become iconic. The umpire was courageous in admitting his error.

"Only Major League Baseball has demonstrated an inability to respond to this unique moment.

"Circumstances make it possible to correct this call with no damage to anyone or any team. But baseball, with its rigid attitude and stubborn pride, reinforces another lesson to kids everywhere: even if everyone does the right thing, hidebound institutions will spoil the happy ending.

"Come on, Bud Selig, make this story about humanity and sportsmanship, not the worship of dogmatic inflexibility."

What I interpret this fan, William Saum, as implying is that you should perform as if you were a judge in "a court of equity," (ask your attorneys about how that tradition started in late medieval England) and make the corrective decision. You certainly do not want to become the main "player" behind the eight ball in the judgment of history, about what writer Jason Gay called: "the Detroit Disaster" in the Wall Street Journal.

This historical judgment was also the tenor of the Wall Street Journal editorial -- "Bud, Make It Perfect." Waxing almost lyrical over rejecting traditional excuses, the Journal wrote that:

"In every baseball park in every town, from the Bronx to your kid's Little League field, anytime some pitcher gets close to perfect, half the people there will start talking about the Galarraga travesty. It will never go away...

"Come on, Bud.... Little kids with a lifetime of baseball ahead of them are asking their fathers to explain why it has to be this way. It doesn't. It wasn't. It was perfect.

"Mr. Commissioner, words fail. But there's no reason you should."

The Washington Post noted that: "some of the eminent students of the game, including our colleagues Dave Sheinin and Tom Boswell, are urging baseball commissioner Bud Selig to overrule the bad call and retroactively declare the game to be perfect." The vast majority of Washington Post readers agreed. And don't you think that Umpire Joyce would rest better at night were you to remove his missed call from the haunting repeated recollections that he cannot otherwise turn back himself? What umpire would not welcome such a redemptive over-ride to a genuinely avowed error in a perfect game.

It was Tom Boswell who best summed up the reason for you to resolve this dilemma: He wrote: "Perhaps only one person in baseball was flummoxed and indecisive: the commissioner. Impromptu polls showed overwhelming public support that Bud Selig simply use his 'best interests of baseball' powers to reverse Joyce's call and make a one-time only, unique-circumstance, no precedent decision."

Please do not expect that this sticky episode will blow over if you just ignore it enough. It will become part of the entrenched lore of Baseball Commissioner obstinacy that does not even explain itself. Please cease going down the road where it will be written that at the time of a magnificent equitable opportunity, Commissioner Bud Selig punted and declined to make a decision that combined truth with the beauty of a perfect game.

While millions of Americans are beset with financial strains, unemployment, underemployment, foreclosures and other economic anxieties, not to mention two unpopular and draining wars, consider that you can give them a joyful moment and an enduring memory of pleasure that the right thing was done for fans, and for a player and an umpire to whom so many sports fans identified with on that day of June 2, 2010.

The game needs such a sense of justice done!

I look forward to your response. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

2002 letter from Nader & League of Fans to NBA Commissioner Stern is back in the news

Posted: June 12, 2008

A letter from Ralph Nader and League of Fans to NBA Commissioner David Stern received nationwide attention in June 2002 for raising questions about the impartiality of officiating during Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings. Nader and League of Fans demanded that Stern conduct a review to satisfy fans' sense of fairness and to deter future recurrences of such egregious officiating.

According to reports on June 11, 2008, former referee Tim Donaghy -- who has pleaded guilty after being charged in 2007 with conspiring with gamblers -- accused NBA executives and referees of broad misconduct and outright manipulation of game results in a recent court filing.

According to Donaghy, NBA executives directed referees "to manipulate games" in order to "boost ticket sales and television ratings." Donaghy pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals as one such instance.

Following is the letter from Ralph Nader & League of Fans to Commissioner Stern regarding the egregious officiating in Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals.

(Permalink for the letter)

June 4, 2002

Commissioner David J. Stern
National Basketball Association
New York, NY

Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6....When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games.

This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials.

Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for the USA Today, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars.

Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically?

In a February interview with David DuPree of USA Today, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ...It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory.

It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter.

You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed � whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs.

We look forward to your considered response.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader
Washington, DC

Shawn McCarthy
League of Fans
Washington, DC

Ralph Nader, founder
Shawn McCarthy, director

League of Fans is a project of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, a nonprofit Ralph Nader organization that supports and conducts a wide variety of research and educational projects to encourage the political, economic and social institutions of this country to be more aware of the needs of the citizen-consumer.