On Second Thought, It's Whether You Win

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


NEW YORK YANKEES

Plaintiff,

v.


PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES

Defendant

09 Civ. 8809

HON. CASEY ATTHEBAT
HON. SULTAN OFSWAT
HON. CY YOUNG,

District Judges

APPEARANCES

GIRARDI AND STEINBRENNER,
Attorneys for Plaintiff,

MICHAEL MANUEL
Attorney for Defendant,


(Case called)

THE COURT: (Atthebat, J.)

This matter comes before this specially-convened 3-judge panel of this Court on the Emergency Motion of Plaintiff, New York Yankees (the "Yankees"), who are in the bottom of the 5th inning of game 1 of the World Series at Yankee Stadium against the defendant, Philadelphia Phillies (the "Phillies"). The Yankees, invoking a rarely-used provision of 28 U.S.C. 4-6-3 (the "Re-Play Act"), have challenged a call on the field by Umpire Dana DeMuth resulting in a highly-contested two-outs. Play in the game has been suspended pending a ruling by this Court.

The facts pertinent to this dispute are as follows: After a leadoff single by Hideki Matsui for the Yankees, Robinson Cano hit a sinking liner to the Phillies' Jimmy Rollins at short(stop). The parties have stipulated that Rollins caught the ball in the web of his glove just before it reached the dirt for out No. 1. The parties also agree that Rollins then stepped on second base and made the throw to Ryan Howard at first. Thus begins the case and controversy.

The Yankees allege that the throw pulled Howard off first base. Consequently, the Yankees argue that the call on the field should be reversed; that Cano should be safe at first, and that there should now be only one out.

Obviously, the Phillies urge this Court to uphold the umpire's call and cite Rule 47-A-15 of the Rules of Major League Baseball 114th ed. (the "Rules"), which Rule provides, in pertinent part:

When a call on the field is close and nobody saw nothin' to say it aint so, then it stands and nothin' and nobody can change it, not nohow.

(emphasis added).

This matter is governed by the doctrine of mootness. Whether the throw pulled Howard off first base is irrelevant, because Rollins alertly noticed that Matsui was still straying off first base after the throw to first. Howard then tagged Matsui, resulting in a double-play call. At that point, all the umps gathered and spent a minute discussing the play. They re-emerged and reiterated the double-play call. Yankees manager Joe Girardi came out to protest the call. The umpires refused to reconsider their ruling, whereupon the Yankees filed this emergency motion.

The Yankees, while citing no authority, ask this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that there has been a host of mistaken umpiring calls in this postseason. While that is so, that's how the game is played. One cannot expect to get a hit by arguing with the umpire; you've got to swing the bat. Indeed, in this most ancient of past-times, it cannot be gainsaid that "It don't mean a thing if it Aint Got that Swing." (See, Ellington, Duke, Ellington Swings! Blue Note Records, 1950).

We are not unsympathetic to the Yankees' position. Yet, while this is a Court of equity, we are nonetheless, required to abide by the rule of stare decisis. Indeed, we are mindful of the instruction in Indians v. Red Sox, 453 U.S. 27 (1952) (Frankfurter, J.): ("When there is no precedent upon which a court of first impression may rely, it should make it up."). This is still good law and we are in no position to disturb it.

The ruling on the field stands. Matsui is out and so is Cano. The Yankees are advised to focus on the fundamentals and forget about attempting to win on a technicality -- while that may be loved in a court of law, it is loathed in the court of public opinion, to wit: the diamond.

SO ORDERED.

Play Ball.

Ofswat, J. Concurring.

Young, J. Dissenting:

Respectfully, I can't help but think that my learned friends need to have their eyes checked. I watched the replay again and again. Howard was clearly pulled of the bag to make the catch, and the play was dead by the time he tagged Matsui. In a case neatly on point, the First Circuit held that when the Umpires are "futzing around trying to get their act together, a baseman has no lawful right to take advantage of the ensuing chaos to tag out an unsuspecting base-runner. In such a situation, the play is dead, the tag is a nullity, and the parties must be returned to the status quo ante. Moreover, a tag nunc pro tunc is disfavored and courts are admonished to allow it only in extreme circumstances when preservation of the public order is at stake." Boston Braves v. Brooklyn Dodgers, 78 F. 2d. 397 (1st Cir. 1949). See, also, In Re Pee Wee Reese, 762 F. Supp. 47 (E.D. Pa. 1953).

In the case at bar, there was nothing approaching an imminent threat to the public order. Indeed, the Yankees submitted the Affidavit of one Theo Epstein, an honorary guest in the V.I.P. Box, who has averred: "There was a nice, mellow buzz about the joint." Under these circumstances, in my estimation, the Court has overreached.

The way I see it, Cano was safe and there should only be one out. But I was out-voted by my learned brothers who, notwithstanding their obvious allegiance to the National League, refused to recuse themselves for this dispute.

That's life.

And baseball.