Baylor University and its president, Ken Starr (the same Ken Starr who was Independent Counsel investigating President Clinton) may file a lawsuit to stop Texas A&M from joining the SEC. I talk to Maggie Gray of Sports Illustrated Inside Report about it.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Catching up with Links
* The Dodgers ownership mess gets messier and messier. If you're a law student looking for a note topic, I'm pretty sure you could have a field day writing about the Dodgers situation, the powers of the MLB commissioner, and the relationship between a league and bankruptcy and divorce courts.
* My column for SI on the Barry Bonds case ending not with a bang, but a whimper (thanks to T.S. Eliot for that line)
* Last week I spoke with Sports Illustrated Inside Report about Texas A&M trying to leave the Big 12 and join the SEC:
* My column for SI on the Barry Bonds case ending not with a bang, but a whimper (thanks to T.S. Eliot for that line)
* Last week I spoke with Sports Illustrated Inside Report about Texas A&M trying to leave the Big 12 and join the SEC:
More Statistics and Sports Law
The American Statistical Association's Section on Statistics in Sports is sponsoring a conference September 24, 2011 at Harvard University. The schedule includes a mix of oral presentations and poster presentations. A panel featuring NBA front office executives is also included. Much like the ASA's general meeting last month, there are a number of papers being presented that address quasi-legal issues in the sports industry. Examples include cheating in soccer, market efficiency in tennis, seed distribution in the NCAA basketball tournament, the efficacy of the NBA's minimum age rule, and referee bias in hockey. Paper abstracts can be found here. Proceedings from the conference will be published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis of Sports. Conference registration and contact details can be found here.
Monday, September 5, 2011
UConn: NCAA Rules (Still) Don't Apply To Us
Current player, Michael Bradley, a 6'10" backup center, has decided to give up his scholarship so Drummond can join his team. Wait...what? Many across the country are applauding Bradley for exhibiting a selfless dedication to his school so they can bring in another star for Calhoun's program. Don't cry for Bradley, apparently he is going to apply for financial aid and, one can only assume, be taken care of by UConn.
This isn't unique to UConn as other schools have pulled similar stunts as well....both Calipari at Kentucky and Pitino at Louisville took similar courses of action. I'm uncomfortable with this...anyone else? Check out my story here at the Huffington Post.
The Re Play’s The Thing
A remarkable event occurred during the 6th inning of the Phillies Marlins game Saturday (which Howard Wasserman also blogged about yesterday). With Ryan Howard on first, Hunter Pence hit a long drive to the fence in right field. As Brian Peterson attempted to make the catch, two South Florida University students who happened to be Phillies fans (who else would be at a Marlins game?) reached over the fence and appeared to touch the glove of the outfielder. As the ball fell to the ground, Pence ended up on second and Howard on third. Out came Manager Jack McKeon to argue fan interference which, if called on the field, could negate the double and return Howard to first. Umpire Joe West and his crew listened then retreated to view the replay. When they returned, West ruled Pence out. Phillies skipper Charlie Manuel then came out to argue and was promptly tossed.The problem was that the baseball’s rule clearly limits the use of replay. The rule states: "Instant replay will apply only to home run calls -- whether they are fair or foul, whether they have left the playing field, or whether they have been subject to fan interference. The decision to use instant replay will be made by the umpire crew chief, who also will make the determination as to whether or not a call should be reversed."
To make matters worse, after the game, Umpire West later gave a false statement as to what had given him “jurisdiction” to consult the replay, claiming Manuel had contested whether it should be ruled a Home Run. The replay shows no such thing; Manuel never approached West until after the reversal was made. The only reason West consulted the replay was to see if it was a double or an out.
For his part, octogenarian McKeon was candid in his assessment of the events, saying, “I don’t know. I’m not the judge. But I would think, isn’t what we want from the umpires: To get it right? Did they get it right? Yes. Did they make a mistake in how they went about getting it right? Yes.”
It’s a classic law school ethics question: is the truth more important than the process? Can a lawyer, or judge or jury go around the rules to see justice is done?
In the end, the game will matter not a bit. The Phillies should easily go on to win their division with the best record in baseball, securing home field advantage along the way.
And as to those Phillies fans? The blogosphere has already rendered its verdict. They will have a tough time buying a cheesesteak when they get home.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Law at the old ballgame
Jen, Lily, and I went to Sunday's game between the Phillies and Marlins, which turned into a game that shows why lawyers love baseball so much. In the top of the sixth and a man on first, the Phillies' Hunter Spence hit a drive to deep right that Marlins rightfielder Bryan Petersen could not pull in against the wall; Spence ended up on second with a double. The Marlins claimed fan interference (a Phillies fan reached his red Phillies hat over the fence and it looks like the hat hit Petersen's glove as he was leaping to make the catch). The umps went to replay, deciding that the fan had interfered and calling Pence out. Phillies manager Charlie Manuel argued the call and was ejected (watching the video, it almost looks as if he asked the crew chief to run him). The Phillies played the game under protest (the link has the video--MLB.com does not allow blogs to embed video), which the Marlins won on a bases-loaded walk in the fourteenth inning (we didn't last that long).
MLB allows replay in three situations: Fair/foul on a home run; home run or in play; and fan interference. The Phillies objection appears to be that fan interference can be reviewed only on a home-run play; in other words, replay can be used to determine whether a ball should have been a home run or should have been an out for fan interference--basically, the Jeffrey Maier play). But it was not clear whether the Phillies argues that this was a home run or seek review; it appeared that only the Marlins sought review for interference; it was either a double (the call on the field) or it was fan interference. Thus, the argument goes, it was not reviewable.
Three thoughts.
First, the adoption of limited replay demands vigorous policing of the boundaries of reviewability. The decision as to what is reviewable grows from a balance among the flow of the game and the need to keep reviewable plays to a minimum, administrative workability (related to flow, as well as to the means for handling overturned plays), and the desire for correctness and accuracy. MLB determined that home run calls should be the focus of replay--homers are inherently important plays on which we know with absolute certainty runs would score and because it is easy to administer, since a home run is such a final play (batter and all runners score, bases empty). But that means a play that is not claimed to be a home run should not be subject to the five-minute break in the action (ten if you count the subsequent argument) associated with review.
Second, I actually was surprised at the fan-interference ruling because it went against the visiting team. My assumption had been that fan interference could only go against the home team, that the rule is designed to prevent the home team's fans from helping their team. I was wrong on that; the rule is written to require that any batter be called out for any interference by any fan with any team. But that actually creates incentives for home fans to interfere on this precise play--rather than taking a chance that the home team's fielder will make a tough catch against the wall, the fan can interfere and assure an out. That can't be right. Of course, this being Miami, the stadium was probably 2/3 Phillies fans, so maybe the umps acted as if the Phillies were the home team. And the guy who interfered was wearing a Phillies hat and jersey, so perhaps the umps determined that the fan was, in fact, trying to aid the Phillies batter.
Third, my guess is that MLB will reject the protest. At least one game story states that both managers protested the call--Manuel wanted it called a home run and the Marlins manager wanted interference. Thus, both issues (home run/in play and home run/interference) were under review. The umpires were looking to see both if the ball went over the yellow line at the top of the fence and might have been a home run, thus bringing it within the scope of replay review. Moreover, to overturn the rule would create a real administrative (remedial, if you will) headache--does MLB order the game replayed at that point in the top of the sixth, nullifying eight more innings of play? As I argued in my post on the anniversary of the pine tar game (one of the rare times a protest was upheld), the difficulties that follow from accepting a protest may affect the decision whether to accept it in the first place.
By the way, this was not the only law-related stuff at this game. A kid was injured by a hard foul ball into the stands and a woman was injured when the barrel of a cracked bat struck her in the head--so you have the age-old issue of liability over fan injuries from things flying into the stands. And we sat in front of one of the more obnoxious fans I've met, so we got a very heavy dose of (mostly whining) cheering speech.
MLB allows replay in three situations: Fair/foul on a home run; home run or in play; and fan interference. The Phillies objection appears to be that fan interference can be reviewed only on a home-run play; in other words, replay can be used to determine whether a ball should have been a home run or should have been an out for fan interference--basically, the Jeffrey Maier play). But it was not clear whether the Phillies argues that this was a home run or seek review; it appeared that only the Marlins sought review for interference; it was either a double (the call on the field) or it was fan interference. Thus, the argument goes, it was not reviewable.
Three thoughts.
First, the adoption of limited replay demands vigorous policing of the boundaries of reviewability. The decision as to what is reviewable grows from a balance among the flow of the game and the need to keep reviewable plays to a minimum, administrative workability (related to flow, as well as to the means for handling overturned plays), and the desire for correctness and accuracy. MLB determined that home run calls should be the focus of replay--homers are inherently important plays on which we know with absolute certainty runs would score and because it is easy to administer, since a home run is such a final play (batter and all runners score, bases empty). But that means a play that is not claimed to be a home run should not be subject to the five-minute break in the action (ten if you count the subsequent argument) associated with review.
Second, I actually was surprised at the fan-interference ruling because it went against the visiting team. My assumption had been that fan interference could only go against the home team, that the rule is designed to prevent the home team's fans from helping their team. I was wrong on that; the rule is written to require that any batter be called out for any interference by any fan with any team. But that actually creates incentives for home fans to interfere on this precise play--rather than taking a chance that the home team's fielder will make a tough catch against the wall, the fan can interfere and assure an out. That can't be right. Of course, this being Miami, the stadium was probably 2/3 Phillies fans, so maybe the umps acted as if the Phillies were the home team. And the guy who interfered was wearing a Phillies hat and jersey, so perhaps the umps determined that the fan was, in fact, trying to aid the Phillies batter.
Third, my guess is that MLB will reject the protest. At least one game story states that both managers protested the call--Manuel wanted it called a home run and the Marlins manager wanted interference. Thus, both issues (home run/in play and home run/interference) were under review. The umpires were looking to see both if the ball went over the yellow line at the top of the fence and might have been a home run, thus bringing it within the scope of replay review. Moreover, to overturn the rule would create a real administrative (remedial, if you will) headache--does MLB order the game replayed at that point in the top of the sixth, nullifying eight more innings of play? As I argued in my post on the anniversary of the pine tar game (one of the rare times a protest was upheld), the difficulties that follow from accepting a protest may affect the decision whether to accept it in the first place.
By the way, this was not the only law-related stuff at this game. A kid was injured by a hard foul ball into the stands and a woman was injured when the barrel of a cracked bat struck her in the head--so you have the age-old issue of liability over fan injuries from things flying into the stands. And we sat in front of one of the more obnoxious fans I've met, so we got a very heavy dose of (mostly whining) cheering speech.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Regulating student-athletes' social media
A fellow law professor raises the following issue: What are the legal (especially First Amendment) implications of recent attempts by some schools (including, apparently, the University of North Carolina) to ban student-athletes from using Twitter and other social media? Can the schools do it? Should they do it? What arguments could student-athletes make in response and would they work?
This is the first I have heard about this issue. My initial, descriptive thought is that such a ban would be upheld on the strength of some unholy hybrid of Garcetti and Morse. Normatively, I find that a bit disheartening. I would hope for a more nuanced analysis, in which we might separate what a player does as an athlete playing for the team (and thus on behalf of the school) and as a student. After all, can it be that student-athletes have fewer First Amendment rights than student non-athletes? I remember watching a documentary a few years ago about John Wooden's UCLA dynasty, which described how Wooden permitted (and even somewhat encouraged) players such as Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton to get involved in campus activism and protests during the off-season (over Viet Nam and civil rights, primarily), with the caveat that they not do anything to embarrass the team (read: "Don't get arrested"). Forty years later and schools are afraid of having players tweet or post status updates?
Thoughts?
This is the first I have heard about this issue. My initial, descriptive thought is that such a ban would be upheld on the strength of some unholy hybrid of Garcetti and Morse. Normatively, I find that a bit disheartening. I would hope for a more nuanced analysis, in which we might separate what a player does as an athlete playing for the team (and thus on behalf of the school) and as a student. After all, can it be that student-athletes have fewer First Amendment rights than student non-athletes? I remember watching a documentary a few years ago about John Wooden's UCLA dynasty, which described how Wooden permitted (and even somewhat encouraged) players such as Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton to get involved in campus activism and protests during the off-season (over Viet Nam and civil rights, primarily), with the caveat that they not do anything to embarrass the team (read: "Don't get arrested"). Forty years later and schools are afraid of having players tweet or post status updates?
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)