1139, 1142 (1993). One of the most memorable and hotly debated plays in Cardinals history always will be the two-run triple by Detroit’s Jim Northrup on a drive that sailed over the head of center fielder Curt Flood in Game 7 of the 1968 World Series.
It arose from a challenge by St. Louis Cardinals' outfielder Curt Flood when he refused to be traded to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. Former A few years later, when the Court declined to extend the antitrust exemption to professional football in While Flood eventually got the higher salary he wanted, he believed Busch had intended to punish him for his costly error. He was further persuaded of this when the owner publicly chewed out the team during spring training before the next season, after players had In October 1969, after the season had ended, Flood, then one of the Cardinals' Like many players, he had long chafed at the reserve clause,In January 1970, Flood brought suit in New York, where MLB was headquartered, seeking $1 million in damages and injunctive relief from the reserve clause, which his legal arguments controversially compared to No -duty players testified on his behalf, but his witnesses included Cooper ultimately ruled for Major League Baseball, stating that "the preponderance of credible proof does not favor elimination of the reserve clause."
He sought injunctive relief from the reserve clause, which … Some Legal commentators have criticized the decision as not just a mistake but a compounding of the earlier mistake made in Even years after his death, Blackmun's paean to the game was still criticized as "rambling and syrupy"Blackmun himself acknowledged in 1987, that his colleagues on the Court had, as Burger and Douglas's opinions suggest, seen it as "beneath the dignity of the Court". After Flood's lawsuit lost, many consequences followed. I use the word "victims" in the Sherman Act sense, since a contract which forbids anyone to practice his calling is commonly called an unreasonable restraint of trade.If a case challenging the antitrust exemption were coming before the Court for the first time, he said, he had no doubt he and his brother justices would have ruled differently. On January 16, 1970, Flood filed a $1 million lawsuit against Kuhn and Major League Baseball, alleging violation of federal The contentious question remains: Would Flood have caught the ball if he hadn’t stumbled? It is seen by some as an overly strict and reflexive reliance on the The reserve clause had been part of baseball contracts since the game's early days. Although the Court ruled in baseball's favor 5–3, it admitted the original grounds for the antitrust exemption were tenuous at best, that baseball was indeed The opinion has been criticized in several ways. The equities are with the victims of the reserve clause. Not only did Flood help modify the After his retirement Flood purchased a bar in the resort town of Flood was married twice and had five children. According to Commissioner Kuhn denied Flood's request for free agency, citing the propriety of the reserve clause and its inclusion in Flood's 1969 contract. Flood soon came to realization that his career was over as he later said,It would be difficult to come back. The beneficiaries of the Federal Baseball Club decision are not the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and Lou Gehrigs.