Entertainment desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 12

Sporting arguments

Sorry about this. It seems to have turned into a related series of questions rather than just one. This came about after watching yet another appeal to the referee during a Euro 2012 game. However, the questions refer to any sport.

Can anyone recall ever seeing an official change their mind about a call after being appealed to by the players/coach/manager? In this case I'm not talking about things like taking a look at the video during the game to see if a goal was scored or an appeal being lodged after a game.
Are there any sports where, either by custom or by regulation, the players/coach/manager can't appeal a ruling during the game?
Are there any advantages to allowing players/coach/manager to argue a call? I could see it perhaps being a good way of allowing people to let off steam.
Have there been any attempts to put a stop to this as it tends to slow down the game, especially in baseball?

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For #1: In baseball, one umpire can, and do sometimes, overrule another on appeal. This typically happens on things like check swings, where a player may appeal the home plate umpire's call to another umpire who had a better view.

For #2: I don't know of any.

For #3: The advantage has to do with the psychology of team sports. Appealing a call can have effects on the morale of the team: A team which knows their coach/manager will fight for them may give a greater effort than for a coach/manager who doesn't seem to care.

For #4: In baseball, argumentative coaches and players can be ejected from the game. Likewise, in basketball, players and coaches can receive technical fouls, and can be ejected for accumulating too many technical fouls.

Hope that helps. --Jayron32 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 2 (and 4, together), managers are not allowed to come out and argue with the umpire about balls and strikes calls. If they do, they're gone. Of course, they can yell from the dugout, but that's different as it doesn't delay the game. Managers are also not allowed to file protests over judgment calls, but only rules violations. That doesn't stop them from trying, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A specific example for #1: In Game 5 of the 1969 World Series, Cleon Jones of the Mets was batting against pitcher Dave McNally of the Orioles. One of McNally's pitches hit at Jones's feet and bounced away. Umpire Lou DiMuro called it a ball, believing it had hit the ground. Jones claimed he was hit by the pitch. Mets manager Gil Hodges picked up the ball and showed it to DiMuro, pointing out a smudge of black shoe polish from Jones's shoe. DiMuro changed his call and sent Jones to first base for being hit by a pitch. (Ref: Society for American Baseball Research) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even more famous than that as far as an ex-post-facto change of an umpire's ruling was the Pine Tar Incident, in which Yankee's manager Billy Martin appealed what had been ruled a home run by the Royals George Brett. After the home run, and based on Martin's appeal, the umpires inspected Brett's bat. Because his bat had too much pine tar on it, they ruled it an illegal bat, ruled him out, and nullified the home run. As a matter of a double successful appeal, the Royals appealed to the Commissioners office, and got the illegal bat relegalized, and the teams were ordered to replay the game from the point after the now reinstated home run. So, not only did the umpires change the ruling on appeal on the field, the commissioners office changed the change of the ruling on appeal after the game was completed. To actually replay part of a completed game over an appeal is an almost singular event; I can't think of another example of that happening ever, in any of the American major sports, at least. --Jayron32 04:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pine Tar thing ranks among the most famous protested games. The Cleon Jones shoe polish incident had a precedent, as the same thing happened with Nippy Jones (no relation) in the 1957 World Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have video evidence of (1) happening in football: Celtic Player Sent Off Ref Changes His Mind (YouTube). The Reading Referee's Association has an article that further discusses the circumstances in which a referee can change his mind. In general, though, the sports with rules laid down in Victorian England (I'm thinking of Soccer, Rugby union, Tennis and Cricket in particular) do not allow referees/umpires to be challenged (recent rule changes to allow limited overturning of decisions based on video evidence notwithstanding). When I learned to play rugby at school, I was taught that rugby has laws rather than rules, which therefore MUST be obeyed. Whatever the referee says is right, even when it isn't, and you never question it. This attitude is rather the same in cricket - for instance batsmen who are given out but refuse to 'walk' will be given a hard time by team mates, opponents, commentators and fans for bad sportsmanship. For tennis, remember John McEnroe's famous meltdown. However much he argued, that call was never gonna change. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In cricket, not walking is not about querying the umpire's decision that you were given out. It's about knowing that you really were out (typically by giving a snick to the keeper) but the umpire missed it and didn't dismiss you, so you stay put. This is a tactic usually employed by Australians. As the great Barry Richards wrote, "the only time an Aussie walks is when his car runs out of petrol." --Viennese Waltz 07:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pig's arse. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the video evidence mentioned above, see Hawk-Eye and Umpire Decision Review System. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one of the more bizarre umpiring screwups of all time, read the sad tale of Vic Delmore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the ongoing nature of play it's quite impractical in most forms of football to allow managers/coaches to appeal individual decisions. The obvious exception would be American football, with it's many stoppages. As an Australian I think it's the case that coaches aren't even supposed to go near the umpires during the game in Australian Football. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The incident involving the England cricketer Ian Bell versus India at Trent Bridge in August 2011 bears some consideration for these questions. This page summarises what happened much better than I can. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article about Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game, which would have benefitted from video review. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether it makes any difference, arguing the current call could affect the ref's decisions to make future calls. Mingmingla (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies. Some comments. I realised later that most of the time wasting nonsense in baseball happens after the manager has been ejected. I should have remembered rugby/cricket but it's been a long time. So it does make some sense to argue the call. Bonus question. Which hockey player told the story of skating back and forth from the bench to the ref carrying messages from the coach? Eventually getting a penalty after stopping too hard and spraying ice on the ref. I thought it was Eddie Shack but it must have been someone else. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In tennis on clay courts a player can appeal a line call and will often point to a ball mark on the court. The Chair Umpire will usually (not always) go down and inspect the mark. Such appeals are frequently successful. Some non-clay matches have Hawk-Eye but that's different. The decision is left to a computer system and no longer controlled by the umpire.

See the Group 4 paragraph of 1982 FIFA World Cup#First round for a famous successful soccer appeal, also mentioned in the lead of Kuwait national football team. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do some refereeing, and in my sport, there are formal opportunities for teams to get an official review of a decision. These are always given proper consideration, although they are very rarely successful, as they are often either based on a misinterpretation of the rules, on something a team member might have seen but the referees did not, or general frustration without any real basis at all. But every referee will make a mistake at some point, and if they cannot justify their call, it will be changed - for example, I was involved in a game where a referee was challenged on the number of points they had awarded, realised they had called it incorrectly, and immediately awarded an extra point. Warofdreams talk 14:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underdogs retiring after an upset

I was wondering if in boxing, there has been a case where a boxer who is considered the underdog was able to pull off an upset victory, but afterwards announces his retirement and afterwards retires for good. For example: Boxer A and Boxer B, where Boxer A is the champion and Boxer B is the challenger and underdog. Boxer B wins, but after that fight permanently retires. Has there ever been such a case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Michael Bentt scored a major upset over Tommy Morrison, then fought only once more, losing to Herbie Hide. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are great motivations to continue to fight:

1) If they fail to accept a sanctioned challenge in a timely manner, they can be stripped of their title.

2) As the defending champ, there's a huge amount of money to be made by them in the next fight.

3) They might also be called a coward, by the press and public, if they refuse to defend their title. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]