The Supreme Court of Baseball

There isn't one, of course, but yesterday's Red Sox-Yankees game makes one wonder how the judicial philosophies of the current USSC would play out in interpreting the Rules of Baseball.  As described in this account, Kevin Youkilis of Boston hit a scorching drive that Yankee left fielder Johnny Damon snared in the webbing of his glove just as he crashed into the wall, causing the ball to pop out of Damon's glove and come to rest, momentarily, on top of the wall.  It fell back into the field of play and Youkilis steamed into third with a trouble.  But what if it had stayed on top of the wall?  According the Baseball's rules, the ball remains live, but would it be a home run or something else.  Rule 6.09(h) says that "any fair fly ball ... deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory" is a home run.  Rule 7.05(a) says that if a "fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight ..." it is a home run.  Hmmm.  Youkilis's drive did not go over the fence or into the stands so a strict textualist would say "no home run."  But it was out of the playing field, as 7.05 requires, but did it get there in flight? Its flight was assisted by Damon.  Was the original meaning of these rules that a ball that a fielder could not reach but was not otherwise in the ball park (think of a ball lost in the vines at Wrigley Field) was a home run?  How would Justices Scalia and Thomas deal with this one?  Perhaps a prudential analysis would be in order: If the fielder can't get the ball it should be a home run and get on with the game.  What if the fielder rams into the wall, jarring the ball back into the filed of play?  Hopefully, by that time the runner would have cruised around the bases anyway, but some sluggers are fairly portly.  Oh dear.  Comments welcome.

Comments

[yickit]

Depends on the definition of "over." But if a home run only happens when a ball eventually ends up on the 'other side' of the fence, rule 7.05(f) would probably apply. I say the runner gets two bags.

[Howard Wasserman]

See my comments here: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/07/umpires-and-jud.html

I say the ball remains in play--it has not left the field, but it is still is playable (unlike a ball caught in the Ivy or stuck beneath the padding, which is a ground-rule double).

[Matt Bodie]

You know, this reminded me of the Jose Canseco "off the head" home run. Here's a discussion about it:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070221120708AAdolT1&show=7

[David Friedman]

This discussion reminded me of AL President Lee MacPhail's infamous Pine Tar Game ruling, the Bush v. Gore of baseball rule interpretation. The rules were there, the umpires applied them correctly and MacPhail overturned them because the umpires' application was not "in the spirit of the rules."

This travesty undermined the legitimacy of the American League President's office.

[David Friedman]

This discussion reminded me of AL President Lee MacPhail's infamous Pine Tar Game ruling, the Bush v. Gore of baseball rule interpretation. The rules were there, the umpires applied them correctly and MacPhail overturned them because the umpires' application was not "in the spirit of the rules."

This travesty undermined the legitimacy of the American League President's office.