Ok. So the commercialization of Christmas has been repeatedly reported, and this is another feeble attempt at another perspective. Why is it that retailers choose this time of the year to cash in on what was originally supposed to be a celebration of the birth of Jesus? (By the way, I'm also referring to the Mexican pronounciation for Jesus to not offend those who can't speak correctly). Just when did we begin to realize that we HAD to buy a tree with embedded lights in the branches, and HAD to spend $745 to keep our economy from sliding into the Iraqi gulf, and HAD to wear women's underwear when you play hockey, er, sorry wrong blog. Anyway, I propose we set aside a special time during the late spring when kids are ready for a big summer where they can freely play with their material things, and celebrate a retail boon. Think about it, we can ignore or forget about "good will toward men" during the midyear and think about greed! By the time, we come to our senses, guess what? It's that most wonderful time of the year. . . again!
By the way, anyone know where I can get a deal on the new Nokia 6256i?
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Legal Opinion
I understand that the Boston Red Sox are suing Doug Mientkiewicz to recover the baseball that was used for the final out in the 2004 World Series. It seems that Mr. Mientkiewicz quietly took that baseball home with him since he was the guy who caught the ball for that third out.
Personally, I don't think the Red Sox have a legal leg to stand on. Among other things, I think the legal doctrine of "finders keepers, losers weepers" applies here. Or perhaps "possession is 9/10 of the law". Either way, Doug had the ball last and major league baseball has historically granted full discretion to the final holder of the baseball.
Take the home run for example. Has major league baseball ever gone up to the fan who caught a homer and said "give us back our baseball"? Same with the foul ball.
Perhaps one would argue that a player is not entitled to the same privileges as a fan insofar as ball possession is concerned. Poppycock, I say! (Well, I don't really ever say poppycock but it seemed like a nice aside in this instance.) There are countless times that I have witnessed a fielder make a catch for the final out of an inning and then casually toss the ball to some greedy fan in the stands. Are these players ever fined or suspended (or sued)? I don't think so. Major league baseball has therefore implicitly granted full discretion to said player with regard to the final disposition of the baseball. Just because Doug's baseball has a little more value attached to it (sentimental or otherwise), it doesn't entitle baseball to all of a sudden reverse 100 years of history and attempt to enforce some alleged "rights" that it never cared about before.
Of course, now that the Red Sox have sued, there is even greater notoriety attached to that baseball. The value to Doug is increased even more. I say if the Red Sox want that ball so bad they should by it back from Doug; at the newly inflated price. You go, Doug!
Personally, I don't think the Red Sox have a legal leg to stand on. Among other things, I think the legal doctrine of "finders keepers, losers weepers" applies here. Or perhaps "possession is 9/10 of the law". Either way, Doug had the ball last and major league baseball has historically granted full discretion to the final holder of the baseball.
Take the home run for example. Has major league baseball ever gone up to the fan who caught a homer and said "give us back our baseball"? Same with the foul ball.
Perhaps one would argue that a player is not entitled to the same privileges as a fan insofar as ball possession is concerned. Poppycock, I say! (Well, I don't really ever say poppycock but it seemed like a nice aside in this instance.) There are countless times that I have witnessed a fielder make a catch for the final out of an inning and then casually toss the ball to some greedy fan in the stands. Are these players ever fined or suspended (or sued)? I don't think so. Major league baseball has therefore implicitly granted full discretion to said player with regard to the final disposition of the baseball. Just because Doug's baseball has a little more value attached to it (sentimental or otherwise), it doesn't entitle baseball to all of a sudden reverse 100 years of history and attempt to enforce some alleged "rights" that it never cared about before.
Of course, now that the Red Sox have sued, there is even greater notoriety attached to that baseball. The value to Doug is increased even more. I say if the Red Sox want that ball so bad they should by it back from Doug; at the newly inflated price. You go, Doug!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
