NHL '94 Dictates An Indians vs. Orioles Do-Over
Published May 02, 2007
The umpires came back and awarded a run to the Orioles in the 6th inning, which made it Indians 4, Orioles 3, when minutes earlier it had been Indians 4, Orioles 2. The Orioles scored two runs in the 8th and another two runs in the 9th and the game finished 7-4 in favor of the Orioles.
Now at first glance, it appears that one run didn't decide the contest. What's the big deal? Well, the problem is two-fold.
First of all, what kind of precedent does this set that a score can be changed well after play has resumed? What if the run breaks a tie game in the 6th inning? What if it breaks a tie in the 8th or 9th? Is it OK only because it didn't change who had the lead in the game?
The second problem is that even though the Indians were winning, every play, every move, every situation in baseball is dictated by stats. Balls, strikes, runs, outs, and number of runners on all determine how everything is played. I am not here to look into a crystal ball and tell you that the game would have turned out differently, but I am saying that you never know. Maybe the Indians would have played with a greater sense of urgency in those innings between when the mistake was made and when the run was thrown on the scoreboard in the sixth if they had only a one-run lead instead of a two-run lead.
It's just like in video game hockey where your video game players are playing the first period of a new game under false pretenses. I never thought I would agree with the roommate who insisted on playing a complete second game to determine a winner, but it appears his theory holds true for me in the real world. The umpires missed the call. They made a mistake in correcting it so late in the game. This is a bad precedent for Major League Baseball and the league should do something to fix it.
- NHL '94 Dictates An Indians vs. Orioles Do-Over
- Published: May 02, 2007
- Type: News
- Section: Sports
- Filed Under: Sports: Baseball
- Writer: Craig Lyndall
- Craig Lyndall's BC Writer page
- Craig Lyndall's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
I think it doesn't set a precedence in that it's not the first time a run was awarded later in a game. I'm going on memory here. We'd have to check that out.
As for Sega, man, that story comes scaringly close to what we went through - only with baseball. A couple of University kids dungeoned up for multiple hours playing a game - and we were active fellows. My mother had to beg us to come up to have supper one night. "Ma, extra innings. I don't expect you to understand..."
dangerous precedent? what's a dangerous precedent is that an ump can blow a freaking call (hell i even knew he was safe) and not be held accountable. if this is overturned, then umps should be suspended indefinitely until they take a random test on the rulebook. i don't care how small the rule. GET IT RIGHT. that's what you're paid to do. there WAS an argument after the call happened as well. yes the actual "original protest" wasn't filed until the next inning, and the run put back on 2 later. again that's the ump's fault for waiting 2 innings after the initial protest was called.
as for playing hard? you're a professional ball player. you should play hard EVERY play. if you don't, piss off and go bag groceries.
the game stands. as for nhl 94' i thought there was OT in that game?? i don't get that.









So that'd make, what, five games they need to make up from April?