Going for the Sweep (vs. NATIONALS, 8/09)

[HowAboutThat]

7 minutes ago, scbalt52 said:

Yeah but it's this one:

 

7.02  Suspended, Postponed, and Tie Games

  (a) A game shall become a suspended game that must be completed at a future date if the game is terminated for any of the following reasons:

  (1) A curfew imposed by law;

  (2) A time limit permissible under league rules;

  (3) Light failure, malfunction of, or unintentional operator error in employing, a mechanical or field device or equipment under the control of the home club (e.g., a retractable roof, a tarpaulin, or other water removal equipment);

Yes I know. I specifically mentioned that, but I also mentioned that the weather clause trumps the equipment malfunction clause, so the unintentional Equipment malfunction is moot.
In other words, whether the tarp malfunctioned or not would not have affected the decision to cancel the game. If the tarp had Functioned correctly,It remains an open question whether the infield would’ve been capable of continuing play when the rain finished. The fact that the infield is worse because of the tarp malfunction is irrelevant, because the infield would have been unplayable regardless. Therefore the game should’ve been called.

I would love to hear from a real lawyer on the subject, but regardless I think there is every grounds for us to file a protest with the league on the grounds of an incompetent grounds crew. By the way, I don’t remember seeing any of the grounds crew wearing masks, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Philip
Clarification...I hope

[CallMeBrooksie]

2 minutes ago, Morgan423 said:

There won't be any extra travel... they are going make it up next weekend at OPACY when we play the Nats again.

Yeah you're right.. I just really want this win

[Morgan423]

Just now, CallMeBrooksie said:

Yeah you're right.. I just really want this win

Oh believe me, I'm with you 100% on that, this is BS.  

The rule book should be changed to always rule in the visiting team's favor in matters like this.  One team has control of the grounds equipment and could manipulate it to their team's favor... the other team does not.

[NashLumber]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes I know. I specifically mentioned that, but I also mentioned that the weather clause trumps the equipment malfunction clause, so the unintentional Equipment malfunction is moot.
In other words, regardless of whether the tarp malfunctioned or not would not have affected the decision to cancel the game. If the tarp had Functioned correctly,It remains an open question whether the infield would’ve been capable of continuing play when the rain finished. The fact that the infield is worse because of the tart malfunctioning is irrelevant, because the infield would have been unplayable regardless. Therefore the game should’ve been called.

Out of rep. Thanks for this clarification. Seems clear to me. I hope Hyde brings this up to the league office. I know games can be protested, but can a game that isn't completed be protested? I'm thinking back to the KC protest of the Pine Tar Game (apples and oranges, of course).  

[HowAboutThat]

9 minutes ago, schittenden said:

I am a lawyer. If I wrote that, I’d be fired. 

I don’t know to what you refer, which is funny.

however, I’d love your professional judgement on whether the game should be suspended or called. 
 

I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, and my stepdaughter is sadly no longer with us so I cannot ask her.

[schittenden]

I could argue that the note at the end of 7.02 means that if the tarp malfunction that prevents the game from resuming is in getting the tarp off the field, the game is suspended. Arguably, the game was stopped by weather so the rule in 7.02(a)(3) should not be applicable to result in a suspended game. 

[schittenden]

2 minutes ago, Philip said:

I don’t know to what you refer, which is funny.

however, I’d love your professional judgement on whether the game should be suspended or called. 
 

I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, and my stepdaughter is sadly no longer with us so I cannot ask her.

I’m referring to the note at the end. It seems contradictory. The first sentence and the examples do not seem consistent to me. I read the first sentence seems to say if any of the things in 7.02(a) occurs, the game is suspended. The examples seem to say that they only apply if the event in 7.02(a) occurs first. 

[Number5]

7.02 (a) (3) does not apply in this case.  The tarpaulin didn't malfunction.  It functions perfectly.  That the grounds crew failed to properly place the tarp where it belongs in a timely fashion is not a malfunction of the device or equipment.  This is a rules misinterpretation, IMO, and therefore grounds for protest.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

7.02 (a) (3) does not apply in this case.  The tarpaulin didn't malfunction.  It functions perfectly.  That the grounds crew failed to properly place the tarp where it belongs in a timely fashion is not a malfunction of the device or equipment.  This is a rules misinterpretation, IMO, and therefore grounds for protest.

This falls under unintentional operator error.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

This falls under unintentional operator error.

I see.  Seems bogus, doesn't it?

[OFFNY]

18 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Going for the sweep with a couple of middle-named "Bryan's" in the lineup ........ 

 

o

o

 

The Orioles did everything that they possibly could to make this happen ........ now, they'll have to wait until Friday to have a chance to make it official. 

 

o

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

I see.  Seems bogus, doesn't it?

I think so.

[allquixotic]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Yes I know. I specifically mentioned that, but I also mentioned that the weather clause trumps the equipment malfunction clause, so the unintentional Equipment malfunction is moot.
In other words, whether the tarp malfunctioned or not would not have affected the decision to cancel the game. If the tarp had Functioned correctly,It remains an open question whether the infield would’ve been capable of continuing play when the rain finished. The fact that the infield is worse because of the tarp malfunction is irrelevant, because the infield would have been unplayable regardless. Therefore the game should’ve been called.

I would love to hear from a real lawyer on the subject, but regardless I think there is every grounds for us to file a protest with the league on the grounds of an incompetent grounds crew. By the way, I don’t remember seeing any of the grounds crew wearing masks, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t.

The weather clause only "trumps" the equipment malfunction clause in the sense that, IF the equipment didn't malfunction (or was unintentionally used improperly), THEN the equipment malfunction clause isn't grounds for suspending the game anyway. If the equipment malfunction (or unintentional misuse thereof) IS the proximate cause (the most direct event) of the game being unable to be completed today, then the rule kicks in and the game is suspended. 

Think about it this way: "But for" the grounds crew's failure to use the tarp properly, the game would have resumed less than an hour after the rain started, because there wasn't enough rain to call the game under "normal" circumstances, because a reasonably deployed tarp would have kept the infield playable after a small amount of work on it after the rain. There is no amount of rain that can fall in 15 minutes that would prevent a reasonably competent 21st century grounds crew from successfully using a tarp or other device (e.g. closing a roof) to prevent the field from getting so wet that the game can't be resumed the same day.

The only way the Orioles should've been entitled to a 5-game win today is if the rain was so persistent, or the volume of it so high, that despite correct procedures being taken, the amount of time required to wait out the rain and then make the field playable would've been unreasonably long in the judgment of the umpires. But that didn't happen, so one of two things should have happened today: either (1) the grounds crew correctly deployed the tarp, and we resumed the game about an hour later, or (2) the grounds crew did not correctly deploy the tarp, and we resume the game another date. 

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

This is how law in the US works, by, the way. If someone punches you in the face, you can't then fall on the ground and decide to intentionally roll around in a bed of nails, then sue for both the punch and the injuries from the nails. The guy who punched you is responsible for the punch, but not for you deciding to roll around in the bed of nails. 

Here is the precedential case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.

[HowAboutThat]

7 minutes ago, allquixotic said:

The weather clause only "trumps" the equipment malfunction clause in the sense that, IF the equipment didn't malfunction (or was unintentionally used improperly), THEN the equipment malfunction clause isn't grounds for suspending the game anyway. If the equipment malfunction (or unintentional misuse thereof) IS the proximate cause (the most direct event) of the game being unable to be completed today, then the rule kicks in and the game is suspended. 

Think about it this way: "But for" the grounds crew's failure to use the tarp properly, the game would have resumed less than an hour after the rain started, because there wasn't enough rain to call the game under "normal" circumstances, because a reasonably deployed tarp would have kept the infield playable after a small amount of work on it after the rain. There is no amount of rain that can fall in 15 minutes that would prevent a reasonably competent 21st century grounds crew from successfully using a tarp or other device (e.g. closing a roof) to prevent the field from getting so wet that the game can't be resumed the same day.

The only way the Orioles should've been entitled to a 5-game win today is if the rain was so persistent, or the volume of it so high, that despite correct procedures being taken, the amount of time required to wait out the rain and then make the field playable would've been unreasonably long in the judgment of the umpires. But that didn't happen, so one of two things should have happened today: either (1) the grounds crew correctly deployed the tarp, and we resumed the game about an hour later, or (2) the grounds crew did not correctly deploy the tarp, and we resume the game another date. 

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

That’s actually pretty clear, points for you!

[schittenden]

8 minutes ago, allquixotic said:

The weather clause only "trumps" the equipment malfunction clause in the sense that, IF the equipment didn't malfunction (or was unintentionally used improperly), THEN the equipment malfunction clause isn't grounds for suspending the game anyway. If the equipment malfunction (or unintentional misuse thereof) IS the proximate cause (the most direct event) of the game being unable to be completed today, then the rule kicks in and the game is suspended. 

Think about it this way: "But for" the grounds crew's failure to use the tarp properly, the game would have resumed less than an hour after the rain started, because there wasn't enough rain to call the game under "normal" circumstances, because a reasonably deployed tarp would have kept the infield playable after a small amount of work on it after the rain. There is no amount of rain that can fall in 15 minutes that would prevent a reasonably competent 21st century grounds crew from successfully using a tarp or other device (e.g. closing a roof) to prevent the field from getting so wet that the game can't be resumed the same day.

The only way the Orioles should've been entitled to a 5-game win today is if the rain was so persistent, or the volume of it so high, that despite correct procedures being taken, the amount of time required to wait out the rain and then make the field playable would've been unreasonably long in the judgment of the umpires. But that didn't happen, so one of two things should have happened today: either (1) the grounds crew correctly deployed the tarp, and we resumed the game about an hour later, or (2) the grounds crew did not correctly deploy the tarp, and we resume the game another date. 

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

This is how law in the US works, by, the way. If someone punches you in the face, you can't then fall on the ground and decide to intentionally roll around in a bed of nails, then sue for both the punch and the injuries from the nails. The guy who punched you is responsible for the punch, but not for you deciding to roll around in the bed of nails. 

Here is the precedential case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.

How does your analysis square with this language that suggests that a mechanical failure that is the but for cause of a game not resuming does not result in a suspended game?

“If a game is halted by weather, and subsequent light failure or an intervening curfew or time limit prevents its resumption, the game shall not be a suspended game.”