World Series of Boxing: A Strike Out or Home Run for Amateur Boxing?

Baseball’s is the most famous, poker’s is one of the most recent ones to gain traction with the viewing public. Now, in September 2010, the “World Series of Boxing” begins throughout the world. What is the “World Series of Boxing”? Well, if all goes according to plan, the World Series of Boxing (hereinafter the “WSB”) will be, according to its official web site, “an annually recurring, global competition featuring franchises in three regional conferences: ASIA, EUROPE, AND THE AMERICAS. Each region will initially be comprised of FOUR CITY-BASED FRANCHISES, and each franchise will field a SQUAD OF 10 BOXERS across FIVE WEIGHT CLASSES designated by AIBA.” Yes, AIBA, the hand that rocks the cradle of international amateur boxing, along with the international sports marketing agency IMG, is doing its part to bring a team element to professional boxing. But that is not the only twist that the WSB is bringing to professional boxing; the salaried participants in these professional boxing team competitions will not only be select professional boxers who competed in the 2008 Olympics, but also some of the top amateur boxers in the world. However, all of the participating amateurs will retain their eligibility to participate in the Olympics. Thus, if the WSB gains traction, it could eventually result in a sea change in the relationship between amateur and professional boxing. A quick analysis of the current rules concerning Olympic eligibility for professional boxing, and the potential implications of allowing amateur boxers jump between the amateur and professional boxing worlds follows...

For the full article, please go to: http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/2633/2010-06-10.html

Boston College's Professional Sports Counseling Panel: Helping Student-Athletes with the Decision to turn Pro

Good piece by Albert Breer in the Boston Globe on Boston College's Professional Sports Counseling Panel, a BC entity which helps its students-athletes with the challenges and opportunities related to turning pro. No other school has a panel like the one offered at BC; they instead use advisers for individual teams. Breer highlights the excellent work of BC Assistant Dean Warren Zola, who serves as Chairman of the Panel.

Here's an excerpt:

* * *

Boston College won’t be mistaken for Southern Cal or Florida as an NFL pipeline. But in player development, the Eagles feel they have a chance to set the standard.

Warren Zola , an assistant dean in the Carroll School of Management at BC, helped organize the school’s Professional Sports Counseling Panel five years ago and has served as chairman, a non-paying position, since then.

The idea? Give student-athletes with professional potential in all sports the training to prepare for the next level. Some schools have coaches or officials for specific sports to handle these matters. But Zola says that, to his knowledge, BC is the only one to have an overarching group separate from the individual programs.

“It may be cliché, but it feels like we’re doing something good, helping young folks make good decisions, and this is a way for me to stay connected to athletics,’’ said Zola, who also teaches sports business and sports law classes.

Zola graduated from Tulane’s law school in 1992, and wanting to stay in athletics but not work as an agent, he got a job working in Athletic Operations at BC. With the blessing of then-football coach Tom Coughlin, he was soon helping Pete Kendall, Tom Nalen, Glenn Foley, and Mike Mamula prepare for the NFL.

When the panel launched in 2005, Zola’s goals were to make sure athletes knew the rules and could navigate the process while preserving their eligibility, and to educate them on picking an agent.

Zola has helped big-timers like Matt Ryan, B.J. Raji, and Jared Dudley, but also sees his presence as vital to the rookie free agent or female basketball player looking to find a contract in Europe.

“Matt Ryan will have no problem getting the right agent,’’ he said. “It’s the others where you have to make sure they understand what’s critical.’’

* * *

To read the rest, click here.

Is it just about perfection?

A question to those clambering for Bud Selig to reverse the call and award Galarraga a perfect game: Is it just about the perfect game, that unique historical rarity? What if it had been an ordinary no-hitter? A one-hitter? What about a shut-out (where the outcome was otherwise unaffected)?

I am trying to figure out why this would not have the commissioner reviewing all sorts of calls post hoc (although Mitch Berman's suggestion could limit this problem). I just am not exorcised about the "correctness" issue, at least where sports are concerned. I prefer finality and redoing all sorts of things once the game ends.

Perfection is in the Eye of the Beholder

So what should MLB have done now that Bud Selig has ruled that the call cannot be changed? Umpire Jim Joyce admits he blew the call. The next batter grounded out. What’s the harm in reversing what was clearly the wrong decision and giving Armando Gallarraga the perfect game he pitched on Wednesday night?

For those of you outside Chicago and Philadelphia who didn’t realize the NHL Stanley Cup finals are being played magnificently, compare what happened in the last game almost at the same time as the goings on in Detroit. The Flyers shot the puck on net and a Blackhawk flicked it out before the officials could see if the puck had crossed the line. Play continued for ninety seconds until an icing call. Then after a look at the replay, the officials declared the goal counted. The ninety seconds were put back on the clock. Even if the Blackhawks had scored a goal during that time, it would have been erased.

Which result is more just, to use the legal term for the purposes of this Blog?

As someone who is Flyered Up, I was thrilled that the right call was made in the hockey game. Playoff hockey is such a brutal game and the players seem to give more of themselves in that sport than in any other, well past the point of exhaustion, performing feats on ice that on solid ground would be remarkable.

But baseball is the most human of games. Players don’t commit penalties or make turnovers, they commit errors. The best hitters fail two thirds of the time. It is a sport that reflects the wonder of human frailty. As the biblical texts teach us, even the angels were jealous of humans because their free will allowed them to make wrong decisions, which made the right ones so much richer.

The way Gallarraga and Joyce have conducted themselves since the one hitter shows how perfect human beings, and baseball, can be.

Against replay and commissioner revision

OK, I guess I have to weigh-in in part on this. Mike captures some of the arguments in favor of replay and I have made my views known in the past. The WSJ Law Blog picked up our dispute. And here is a nice summary (with a bent towards opposing replay, I sense) from Ted Frank at Point of Law. Josh Levin goes farther to suggest ways that umpires can be eliminated in substantial part through some technology, including a system of making video responsible for the initial call rather than for review.


This game does not change my mind about replay generally and specifically in baseball. I still am not convinced that replay will across-the-board increase accuracy. And, in any event, I continue to believe that the efficiency and workability concerns outweigh any increased accuracy. And I just am not willing to give up on the human side of it. If that makes me old-fashioned or tradition-bound, so be it. In any event, I will hide behind the argument from Fred Schauer and Richard Zeckhauser about the danger to making rules (or, in this case, changing my mind about policy) based on a specific, unique case, which is necessarily skewing as to the larger problem. This is a classic example of that--one vivid story likely will drive major changes to replay.

Instead, let me talk about the question (mentioned in the WSJ post) of whether Bud Selig should step in to undo the call and award Galarraga a perfect game, to which I say no. The commissioner does not (and I believe should not) exercise power to overturn a particular call in a particular game and there is no instance of the commissioner (or a league president) ever overturning a particular call.  The commissioner/league president review power always has been limited to matters of interpretation of the rule (such as the Pine Tar Game in 1983), not its application. And, as Ted Frank notes, MLB will not overturn an erroneous interpretation if it would not affect the outcome. [Update: Selig announced he will not reverse the call, but will look into the umpiring system and, oh no, expanded use of replay.]

There also is a danger to allowing this one unique case to over-determine the question of post-hoc revision of calls. Is it so different that the blown call occurred on the 27th out rather than the 26th? How about on the 1st out--Suppose (as I propose in a comment on Mike's post) the blown call had occurred with the lead-off hitter, Galarraga then picked him off and proceeded to retire the next 26 batters. Or suppose that Batter # 27 took what replays all showed unquestionably show (and the plate umpire later admits) was strike 3 but was called a ball, then got a base hit on the very next pitch--should the commissioner be able to go back and say the batter actually struck out? None of these situations are, it seems to me, different than what we actually have--there would have been a perfect game but for the blown call.

Finally, it is interesting that this has become the lightning rod for replay, because unlike other historically "wrong" calls (see Denkinger, Don) this one did not affect the outcome of the game, but only a historical footnote.

By the way, I would have been in favor of the umpires huddling on the play and overruling the call at the time. I am not sure if the rules allow it in that situation, but it seems appropriate there.

Further Update: Mitch Berman of Texas (a co-panelist on my "Judges as Umpires panel who is working on a book about sports/law links) makes the following interesting point:

[I]t’s rare that a call can be corrected without having either to make contestable counterfactual judgments or to replay the game forward from the point of correction.  The latter, of course, is what had to happen in the pine tar game.  But in this most recent fiasco, the miscall can be corrected and everything all wrapped up without further ado. 

Indeed, I’m tempted by the following proposal: allow the C’mish to reverse mistaken factual determinations when (1) the call was clearly erroneous; and (2) correction would require neither counterfactual judgment nor re-play.  Those two conditions are likely to obtain very rarely.  But when they do, why not correct what’s correctable?

Armando Galaragga and the Need for Instant Replay in Baseball

On Wednesday night, with just one out to go in the game, Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga was wrongly denied a perfect game on a very bad call by umpire Jim Joyce. Here's Tom Verducci's account for SI.com:

Joyce happened to be working first base Wednesday night in Detroit for the game between the Tigers and the Indians when infamy did not just tap him on the shoulder, it slapped him upside the head. Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga had just thrown the 21st perfect game in baseball history, and a ridiculous third perfecto inside of four weeks, when first baseman Miguel Cabrera threw to him covering first base on a grounder by Jason Donald for the 27th out. Cabrera celebrated. Only one thing was missing.

Jim Joyce called Donald safe.

There is no polite way to say this: Joyce blew the call. Galarraga caught the ball in plenty of time, even if it wedged precariously in the webbing of his glove, and scraped the base, even if inelegantly, with his foot. Immortal fame was his.

Jim Joyce took it away. He called Donald safe. No sign that Galarraga juggled the ball. No sign that he missed the base. Just safe. Pure and simple safe.

Umpires miss calls. It happens. Nobody feels worse when an umpire misses a call than the umpire himself. They are proud men who strive for a 100 percent success rate and are bound to be disappointed. Upon seeing a replay, Joyce was crushed.

"I just cost that kid a perfect game," the umpired admitted afterward. "I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay."

Give credit to Joyce for admitting that he made a bad call and taking responsibility. He also apologized personally to Galarraga.

It's encouraging when someone admits a mistake and owns up to it, but why should the mistake even stand? Why isn't there instant replay for extremely close calls, especially when fans get to watch those replays, in some cases over-and-over again? And especially when the person who made the mistake clearly would have corrected it had he been able?

Some might argue that instant replay would extend the time of already-too-long games. That is probably true, but if managers were limited to two or three replay challenges per game, presumably the impact on the time would not be too significant. Also, isn't accuracy and the fairness it promotes more important than whether games are five minutes longer?

Others place value in the tradition -- umpires haven't been able to use instant replay for calls and we should honor that tradition. First off, that isn't true, as in 2008, MLB umpires allowed for umpires to use instant replay to review whether fly balls are foul or home runs. But more important, who cares about a tradition if contemporary technology offers a better and fairer system? After-all, if instant replay technology had been around when baseball was created and developed, isn't there a good chance that it would have been adopted?

Opponents to instant replay have other reasons, and for a great defense of their position, check out Howard's 2007 piece titled "Against Instant Replay". Maybe he'll change his mind after watching the video above, though.

So do you support MLB adopting instant replay? If so, how would it work?

American Needle v. NFL: The Broader Aftermath

With more than a week having passed since the Supreme Court's ruling in American Needle v. Nat'l Football League, discussion about the case has begun to shift from what the ruling means for American Needle Inc. to what it means for other sports-related businesses.

Here are four sources that begin to address that issue:

• First, in an editorial published in this week's Sports Business Journal, I discuss the impact of the American Needle ruling on labor relations, ticket pricing, and the way that investors will likely structure new professional sports leagues (here).

• Second, in an interview with Ripten Magazine, I discuss the impact of the American Needle ruling on the football video game market and the NFL's exclusive licensing deal with EA Sports (here).

• Third, in traditional law review format, University of Iowa's esteemed Ben V. and Dorothy Willie Professor of Law Herbert J. Hovenkamp discusses the impact of American Needle on the credit card, hospital, and real estate industries (here).

• Finally, over on the Legal Talk Network, attorneys and co-hosts J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi interview both Michael McCann and me about the effects of the American Needle case, via podcast (here).

(Cross-posted on SportsJudge Blog)