Abstract
Like every sport, baseball operates as a legal system, complete with laws that govern play and a process for resolving disputes that occur during the game. The large majority of these laws are enforced through a type of public litigation: umpires are responsible for detecting infractions and imposing the mandated penalties. However, unlike in every other sport popular in the United States, certain laws are enforced through a type of private litigation: the appeal play. Umpires do not declare those infractions unless the other team appeals to an umpire that the infraction occurred. A substantial body of legal scholarship explores the relative advantages and disadvantages of private and public litigation in conventional legal systems. This Article uses insights from that literature and applies it to the legal structure of baseball. Based on this analysis, the Article recommends changes to some of baseball’s laws. It argues that there is little justification for most appeal plays; instead, umpires should declare those infractions regardless of whether the other team appeals. However, it also argues that some infractions that currently are not appeal plays should be made appeal plays. Those are infractions that the umpire does not need to detect as they are occurring, but can instead judge after the fact when an appeal is made. Having such infractions be appeal plays would allow umpires to focus on other aspects of the game.
Recommended Citation
Ahmed E. Taha,
The Jurisprudence of Baseball: Private Versus Public Litigation,
130
Dick. L. Rev.
557
(2026).
Available at:
https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol130/iss2/5