Interesting little "Phillie" tidbit.....

[suicide_squeeze]

Of late, there has been quite a bit of discussion on "rights" of things flying into the stands at baseball games.

It seems to be agreed that the one common "piece" that is universally accepted as "fan property" is a home run ball.

This following news bit will back that up. Apparently a 12 year old girl caught a ball in Phillie that Ryan Howard hit for a home run (a "historic" one at that.....I'm researching to see what history is behind it based on the date given). They (the Phillies organization) performed the old ritual of "Let's take advantage of a family that doesn't know any better" and offered up a different baseball in place of the historic one, because we want it!

Well, apparently somewhere along the line, the little girl and her family found out that ball could be worth several thousand dollars, so they eventually got an attorney involved, and the ball was delivered back to the girl.

Interesting.....although the story is a back lacking in details....

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI133210/#

As mentioned before in other threads, I have experienced this exact issue first hand with the Dodgers. I had to go to battle against them, albeit a one-day face-to-face meeting with the family and management, and we resolved the issue on the spot (no attorneys needed, thank you!).

But make no mistake about it, folks, if it enters the stands and you catch it..... it's YOURS......at least in regards to a home run baseball!

[notxpensv4u]

Fastest player to 200 baseball.......At least the girl won in the end.

[suicide_squeeze]

Hmmm.....

A quick search shows Ryan Howard didn't hit a home run against Florida on July 17, 2009. Chase Utley did....

Someone has their dates screwed up.....either the media, or the site posting the story.

[suicide_squeeze]

The correct date was July 16, 2009, and that's what it was notexpensv4u, his 200th homer, the fastest in MLB history to accomplish the feat. A pretty nice ball to have caught!

[markize]

Any way of knowing if she got the actual HR ball back? Who's to say the Phillies didn't give the real ball to Howard, and give a "regular" ball to the girl.

Mark

[treant985]

This was the same conclusion the judge reached in the Bonds HR ball case, where multiple fans claimed ownership...and then the Giants tried to claim that THEY owned the ball because they paid for it.

The judge said homer balls are abandoned property, so the team has no rights to them (unless one of their employees catches it, I guess).

I suppose the same would apply to foul balls.

The question then becomes: why aren't you allowed to keep bats that fly into the stands? Maybe you are, but teams try to say that you aren't. I guess the other explanation is that a player is TRYING to hit a homer (or even a foul ball), but he isn't trying to throw his bat into the stands, so he never intended to "abandon" it.

Also reminds me of Doug Mientkiewicz trying to claim that he owned the final-out ball from the 2004 World Series. Considering he worked for the Red Sox, I don't think that would've gone too well for Doug if he'd had to take it to court...

[treant985]

This was the same conclusion the judge reached in the Bonds HR ball case, where multiple fans claimed ownership...and then the Giants tried to claim that THEY owned the ball because they paid for it.

The judge said homer balls are abandoned property, so the team has no rights to them (unless one of their employees catches it, I guess).

As a correction, I don't think the giants ever claimed ownership, but showing that the ball wasn't owned by the team was key to deciding which of the two fans should own it. Like Solomon, the judge told them to sell the ball and split the money.

[sox83cubs84]

Any way of knowing if she got the actual HR ball back? Who's to say the Phillies didn't give the real ball to Howard, and give a "regular" ball to the girl.

Mark

My thoughts exactly. The mere fact that the ball was, even temporarily, out of the kid's possession will kill any chance of a big sale for that precise reason.

Dave M.
Chicago area

[suicide_squeeze]

Any way of knowing if she got the actual HR ball back? Who's to say the Phillies didn't give the real ball to Howard, and give a "regular" ball to the girl.

Mark

Good question. But there is an answer.

Imagine if the girl sold the ball in an auction for, let's say, $5,000.00.

Six years later, the Phillies open up a "Phillies museam" in the stadium. On display is "Ryan Howard's 200th career home run ball".

At that moment the girl first hear's that ball is on display, also known in the legal circles as "dicovery", the staute of limitations starts. She then has a certain amount of time (I believe 2 years) to file suit aginst the Philadelphia Phillies organization for fraud.

Upon completion of presenting the well publicized info we are discussing here, the jury finds the Phillies guilty of intentionally misrepresenting the ball as Ryan Howard's 200th home run ball they sent back to her.

Then during the punitive phase, the girl is awarded $50,000,000 by a jury who is disgusted with the lies perpetrated by ownership while defrauding a 12 year old fan of their team. Essentially, she becomes a majority owner of the Phillies by means of the wrath of the disgusted jury.

Trust me.......the Phillies did NOT give her a bogus ball. There is no way they would ever misrepresent such a thing, and open themselves up to the sports lawsuit of shame for all time. It's the correct ball. No question about it.

[suicide_squeeze]

I have determined I need a new keyboard based on the typos in my last post.

"museam" = "museum"
"dicovery" = "discovery"
staute = statute
aginst = against

My apologies for the ghost keystrokes