[Choi Min-gyu's Baseball Prism] Can the Judicialization of History Be Free from Wrong Calls?

Baseball 'Appeal Play' Where Players Must Appeal for Umpire's Call in Certain Situations
Gives Umpires Strong Authority but Also Acknowledges Its Limits
Bill to Create Umpires to Prevent Historical Distortion Criticized for Granting Judiciary Historical Judgment Authority
Cannot Guarantee No Wrong Calls

On May 3, 2011, at Sajik Stadium in Busan, Samsung Lions' No. 7 batter Chae Tae-in made a mistake that would go down in the history of the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) League.

In the top of the 2nd inning with the score tied 0-0 and one out, Chae Tae-in was the runner on first base. The batter, Shin Myung-chul, hit a ball that dropped in the right-center outfield. Having already touched second base, Chae thought the ball would be caught and tried to return to first base after touching second. However, the Lotte outfielders failed to catch the ball, so Chae had to run to third base. Instead of touching second base again, he ran across the infield grass directly to third base. Lotte's second baseman Jo Sung-hwan, who received the throw from the outfield, touched second base and then ran to third base, tagging Chae who was standing on the base. Chae was out due to a "missed base" call. According to baseball rules, a runner must touch the bases in order while advancing or retreating. Chae was ironically praised as having "pioneered a new route like Columbus."

Chae's out in this play was not completed solely by Jo Sung-hwan's tag. Along with the tag, Lotte's third baseman Hwang Jae-gyun appealed to third base umpire Yoon Sang-won that Chae had not touched second base. Umpire Yoon confirmed with the second base umpire and accepted the appeal before declaring the out. If the Lotte fielders had not appealed, Chae could have retained possession of third base. This is a unique "appeal play" in baseball. The second base umpire did not immediately call out when Jo touched second base because no appeal was made at second base. Without an appeal, umpires are not allowed to make an out call.

The appeal play is believed to have originated in American baseball in the 1860s. It was officially codified in 1876, the year the National League?the oldest existing Major League?played its first season. The National League rules that year categorized 17 situations in which a runner could be out. In 15 of those situations, umpires had to immediately call an out when a tag or base touch resulted in a force out. However, for "missed base" and overrunning first base after the batter-runner showed intent to advance, the rules stated that the defensive team's appeal must be awaited. Today, the number of situations where appeal outs apply has increased to four, but the principle that no out can be called without an appeal remains.

It has been a rule since the beginning of baseball that a runner must touch first, second, and third bases in order and then home plate for a run to count. Even if an umpire notices a violation of skipping a base, no penalty is given unless the defensive team appeals. This can be difficult to understand at first glance.

At that time, baseball games were officiated by a single umpire. The two-umpire system officially began in 1910 and later evolved into a four-umpire system. Umpires have only two eyes. In early baseball games, players frequently exploited the umpire's blind spots by deliberately running directly from first to third or second to home, which were violations. Naturally, disputes over calls followed. However, the principle in baseball is that out or safe calls are final and cannot be overturned. Even if umpires were deceived, calls could not be reversed.

Therefore, the appeal play was introduced to partially transfer the responsibility of catching opponents' violations and mistakes to the players, while deferring the call. This aligns with the saying that baseball is ultimately played by the players, not the umpires. Yoon Byung-woong, a KBO statistician, interpreted this as "an intention to avoid umpire arbitrariness in frequently disputed calls." Heo Woon, chairman of the KBO umpire committee, explained, "The defensive team must verify whether the opposing runner touched the bases correctly. If an umpire calls a player out for skipping a base without an appeal, it would be an unfair act favoring the defensive team."

Not everyone on the baseball field is a player. For some, especially socially vulnerable groups, active judicial intervention akin to an umpire's role may be necessary. However, those who hold both power and responsibility often demand umpire decisions too frequently and too easily.

On the 9th, 21 academic societies and researcher groups, including the Historical Society, issued a statement expressing their position on the "Historical Distortion Prevention Act" proposed last month by 12 lawmakers including Kim Yong-min of the Democratic Party. This bill aims to establish a legal basis to punish acts that praise Japanese imperialism or distort related history and proposes a "Judicial Committee for Truthful History" as an umpire. The statement criticized the bill for "legally defining the judge of history," warning that "historical events with numerous controversies could become subjects of judicial punishment depending on political changes."

The statement's title is "Concerns about the Judicialization of History." Korean politics is criticized for losing problem-solving ability and relying on the judiciary. With a former prosecutor general emerging as the leading presidential candidate immediately after retirement, the phenomenon of "judicialization of politics" is reaching its peak. Now, there is an attempt to grant the judiciary the authority to judge history itself.

The reason baseball has the appeal out rule is that while granting umpires the powerful authority to make irreversible calls, it also acknowledges their limits. 19th-century American baseball tried to resolve trust issues with umpires by giving players some responsibility and authority in areas prone to frequent misjudgments and disputes. Today, is the Korean public's trust in the judiciary higher than the trust American baseball players had in umpires back then? Can we say there will be no "misjudgments" in judicial historical rulings?

Director of the Korean Baseball Society