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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Interesting argument, but one I would like to debate. Just to take the Red Sox' position, I would argue that the Red Sox own the rights to the baseball. After all, Doug was employed by said team. As a duly employed worker still on the clock at the time, he had a responsibility to use the tools of his trade, i.e. baseball glove, uniform, etc. but they are not owned by him.
As an example of my point, if he were to have a romantic liaison with one of his many groupies while in the dugout, he most assuredly would be reprimanded for such behavior. However, if this tryst were to occur after the game ended in the privacy of his rear seat of his overpriced automobile, there would not be an issue.
Another point, he could not use his uniform to hawk any endorsements during the course of the game.
Final point would be to consider a businessman in the course of his workday. Let's say he's conducting an inventory of his products. Just because it's the end of his workday at 5:00 and he's just happened to be holding a warehouse part does not mean he can walk home with it! Now if he just happens to be holding the office tart, that may be another issue.
Now, in terms of the fans who catch balls and occasionally an errant bat in the stands. That is completely different, because they are not employees of the team, nor of MLB. As part of their admission fee, they are able to receive these souvenirs and also assume the risk (that they may end up as infamous as Mr. Bartman, perhaps). But nonetheless, the rules are different for them as non-employees.
So now that I've outed you as a employee who regularly steals and embezzles from his company, what do you have to say?
(Ir)Regardless of your point, the fact is that because the Red Sox are pursuing this case, Doug will be putting an evil curse on the Red Sox. I don't think they'll win another game for at least 80 years. Besides, they're just a bunch of idiots anyway.
curse
One could make the feeble argument that the Red Sox have ownership rights to the baseball. However, there is over a century of precedent that neither Major League Baseball nor the Red Sox in particular have exercised the right of ownership of a baseball beyond the last out of an inning. While your ethics suggest that you bypassed business law classes, Shirley (sic) you're familiar with the concept of adverse possession. By letting every Mick, Mookie and Mo do whatever they please with a ball they have caught for the final out, baseball has effectively relinquished their right of ownership to the "game ball".
Over the course of a baseball game, literally dozens of baseballs are consumed in the playing of the game. Clearly the baseball is a consumable supply in the same manner as a pencil is to an office worker. Obviously there is no expectation on the part of an employer to recover possession of a pencil once the worker has exhausted it's usefulness (FYI - this rule does not apply to Blackberrys.)
Furthermore, at the commencement of a baseball game, a new baseball is always introduced to begin the game. Considering that the ball Mr. Mientkiewicz caught not only ended the game but the major league baseball season as well, there is no reasonable presumption of further use of said ball.
The issue is black and white. The ball is Doug's. The doggone ball is Doug's.
No. I think it's mine.
Okay, let's take your naive, uneducated, and plain ignorant perspective. Just because Doug happens to have the ball in his possession does not give him rights to the ball. For example, if you were to be in possession of the company car at the close of business does not entitle you to ownership of said vehicle. And the pencil that you so easily used up throughout the day was intended for your use WHILE in the employment of its use in the normal expected manner. The baseball that Doug had was his (and the rest of the players) to use, UNTIL the end of the game. Upon expiration of the game, the ball as long as its still possessed by a member of MLB should be considered owned by the MLB HOME team, and in this case would be the Red Sox. If Doug chose to throw the said ball into the stands, then the ownership question would no longer apply and it would be a $3,000,000 free for all. However, because of the pending litigation, I'm sure the market value of the ball has increased exponentially.
Because Doug has proven his integrity to be questionable, I am convinced that he is still in possession of the actual ball and had subsequently replaced the ball with another. In fact, I have been selling imitations of the baseball for over a year now.
I rest my case.
Perry Mason-rock
Mr. Huge you ignorant slut. By applying your flawed logic the ball would belong to the ST. LOUIS CARDINALS because THEY were the HOME team during that fateful play.
Clearly the Cardinals couldn't care less about this silly little feud. In fact, they are metaphorically equivalent to the nonchalant fielder who casually tosses the final out into the stands. In this instance, their "toss" happened to land in the glove of Doug Mientciewicz. The owner.
I stand corrected. What I meant to say was that since Doug and the Red Sox were the last to possess the baseball during regulation, the person who possessed the ball, Doug, had a claim to the baseball. HOWEVER, since he was employed by the Red Sox and was in the course of conducting his player duties, he of course, cannot lay claim to it, but it belongs to the Red Sox. Seems pretty obvious.
Look at it this way, you imbecile. Many companies hold patents after research and discoveries are made by their employees in the course of their work. Even if the employee were to establish an innovation outside of work, they may even be bound by their employers if it can be proven that they use knowledge or tools developed from their employer.
Ok, you dumb ape, apparently you can give Darwin a run for his money, and I'm not talking about the husband on Bewitched!
You do more waffling than the weekend chef at Denny's. Why don't you open up a Waffle House. You obviously don't have a future practicing law!
Ok, so we all know that this entire debate may not have even taken place, if Doug were smart and threw the ball into the stands. He should have just thrown it to his brother-in-law.
In response to your last comment: If I were to own a waffle house, then I would have more practice tossing little wienies like you. (note: surepticious play on Practice?)
And a discrete play on law as well? Oh brother.
What a mother! I think I need to start laying the law on you.
Post a Comment