Kraig, I disagree. This is an entirely different situation. The change in 1991 changed the entire definition of what a no-hitter was and applied to all past games in a clear way, whereas this would be creating a rule just to make one specific situation right. Further, it would not be practical to alter the rules to make this a perfect game.In 1991, the league overturned about 50 no-hitters. If they can do that, they can do this.
For example, after the 1991 definition change, no-hitters had to be at least nine innings long. So a five inning rained out no-hitter was no longer considered a no-hitter. We could discuss whether that is fair or not, but it was a tightening of the definition of no-hitter that applied generally and objectively. The rule was not changed to alter the classification of any specific game, though it did change the record books. [[For the record, I am not thrilled with changes like this, but I have not fully considered the 1991 changes, so I will not express an opinion at this time.)
Here, you would be making a change to specifically excuse Jim Joyce's awful umpiring error. You would need to alter the definition of perfect game to include something like "or a case in which an umpire's blown call allows a baserunner in what would otherwise be a perfect game." This would be bad for a few reasons. First, carving out rules for specific games does not seem fair, because that has not been done in all kinds of other cases in which an umpire messed things up, including cases that could have cost teams championships [[anyone remember Jeffrey Maier?). Second, this rule could never be applied objectively in the future. What if the call was really close and could have gone either way? Should the umpire be overturned? Probably not.
For these reasons, I do not think we should try to stretch the rules to make it a perfect game. Should we consider instant reply in the future? Definitely. But we should fix things going forward, and not look backward. Otherwise, I think we have an obligation to look at all mistakes in the past in order to be fair, and that is simply impractical.
Bookmarks