Special Article
When The Umpire’s Ruling is Not Final After the Game Ends is Bad for Baseball
Steve Levine, Contributor
By now, you have all heard about the New Jersey Little Leaguer who, on July 16, 2025, flipped his bat 20 feet into the air after hitting a home run in the finals of his team’s sectional tournament. The plate umpire deemed it “unsportsmanlike conduct” and engaging in “horseplay” and ejected the player after he completed his home run trot. Little League added later that the bat flip violated the rule prohibiting “intentional throwing of equipment” that could endanger others.
Under Little League rules, the ejection came with an automatic one-game suspension. This meant that the player would not be able to play in his team’s State Tournament game on July 24.
The father of the player filed suit (negligence and breach of contract) against Little League International (“LLI”) in New Jersey’s local court, seeking a restraining order (injunction) to allow his son to play in the state tournament game. Hours before the game was played, the judge granted the emergency injunctive relief and allowed the player to join his team in the game. (Ultimately, his team was mercy-ruled at 10-0, and the player struck out twice in his two at-bats.)
The judge ruled that LLI’s rulebook does not explicitly ban bat flips, the punishment was “draconian,” and because the league’s conduct enforcement lacked clarity and consistency, the suspension was improperly applied. It did not discuss the ejection directly–only the suspension that followed.
While acknowledging that it would follow the court’s order, LLI stated that it holds “the integrity of the game, respect for game officials, and sportsmanship of teams as core tenants/sic/ of our program.” LLI also maintained that the proper guides for the game are the “tournament rules . . .under the discretion of the umpires.” Finally, LLI stated its “disappointment that a legal ruling contradicts the integrity of Little League International’s values and rules,” and undermined the authority and discretion of on-field officials.
Courts Generally do not Become Involved in Sports Officials’ Decisions after the Game Even if a Mistake is Made
This case is highly controversial because it breaks from over 80 years’ of longstanding precedent (per NASO) that courts do not interfere in sports officiation, even when it has been shown by concrete and factual evidence that the official got it wrong. This writer’s research revealed that this case is exceedingly rare, with only one such other case being uncovered.[1] Examples include the following:
In 2024, in a semi-final playoff in New Jersey, Manasquan High School appeared to have won the game on a buzzer-beater, but the referees waved off the basket after discussing it among themselves. Video evidence later showed that the shot was timely and should have been allowed.
The high school appealed to the NJ Department of Education and a NJ court of appeals, but all of them refused to overturn the officials’ call. The court stated that judges “do not sit as referees of basketball any more than they sit as the umpire of baseball,” emphasizing that on-field calls are final.
In 2016, Fenwick High School filed a lawsuit to reverse an on-field ruling. The court ruled that it was not the court’s jurisdiction to overturn the call even if Fenwick suffered irreparable harm as the result of the official’s failure to properly apply a rule.
In 2015, the Oklahoma City school district filed suit claiming that an official’s on-field call caused its team to lose a quarter-final playoff game. The Court rejected the claim, stating “What transpired during and to some degree after the disputed quarterfinal could be considered by many as a tragedy. More tragic, however, would be for this court to assert itself in this matter. “
In 2005, a high school wrestler in New York filed a lawsuit against the state after a referee assessed him a 2-point penalty, costing him the state title match. The court disallowed the claim, stating that “to establish a precedent of reviewing and potentially reversing a referee’s judgment call from the distant ivory tower of a judge’s chambers would cause unending confusion in the interscholastic athletic system.”
While there are many more examples of this type, one that occurred in December 2005 is particularly on point. In Oklahoma, referees ejected a player for unsportsmanlike conduct, which carried a 2-game suspension. The player’s mother filed suit seeking an injunction to allow the player to play. The Oklahoma Supreme Court flatly rejected the claim, ruling “It is not within our province to act as ‘super referees’ to alter or overturn the referee’s determinations.”
Thus, courts commonly defer entirely to the officials on the field and the associations that govern them. Judicial intervention in sports officiating is exceedingly rare.
Judicial Deference to Sports Officials is, and Should be, the Norm, Even if Mistakes are Evident
There are many reasons why courts have consistently taken the position, properly so, that decisions made by on-field officials should not be subject to judicial review. Decisions on the field, such as fair/foul, safe/out, malicious contact, interference, obstruction, etc., require quick assessments within the context of the particular game. Courts should never be in the position to potentially second-guess a ruling and potentially disrupt the finality of the results. If it became an available tool, there would be a wave of litigation every time a player or team felt aggrieved by an adverse ruling.
In sum, judicial review of an on-field decision by a sports official sets a bad precedent as it fundamentally undermines the finality, authority and structure on which sports depend.
High School and College Officials are trained, at great time and expense to themselves, to make real-time judgments within the rules of the game. We cannot allow an officials’ expert immediate decision-making to be delayed by an external review by a non-expert outside of the confines of the field. This risks eroding the confidence in the entire amateur officiating system and sends the message that all decisions are negotiable after the fact. Amateur officials should not be placed under threat of litigation every time they take the field.
Games should be decided by the players, under the careful game management of officials under the league rules, and not by lawyers and judges after the fact.
Editor’s Note: This article is for the sole purpose of reading about what has happened recently, a human interest story. Any changes or updates to rules regarding bat flips or sportsmanship will be addressed independently from this article.
Steven Levine has 44 years’ experience as a civil trial attorney in the state and federal courts in Virginia, DC, and Maryland. Steven has been a baseball umpire for 29 years, 27 of them with MAC. He started in Little League in 1997, having been recruited and initially trained by Dave Maher.
Steven has two children, one of whom, Ryan, was an umpire with MAC for 8 years, starting as a teenager.