Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
DavidN
Published Letters: 171 Editor's Choice: 91
The call at second base in last night's game was simply horrendous. A classic example of an ump making a call based on a guess, not what he actually saw. A bad call, like the one last night, has the undisputed potential to cost a team a run or two, if not more. As we saw with the White Sox-Angels and the "dropped" third strike, bad calls can swing a game and a series. although the Sox won the next three, if the Angels win game 2, the series is still only 3-2 White Sox and the Angels are still in it.
Based on these two calls I'm changing my position on instant replay. I say it needs to be used in the playoffs, and perhaps the regular season. The stakes are too big and it damages the credibility of the game to have a series affected by a blown call. I know that bad calls are a part of the game's lore and they make some games and series more memorable than they otherwise would be and I appreciate that. The '85 Denkinger call is the best example. To me it damages the game when I watch the world series and know that the Astros needed a little help to get to the World Series and to beat a team that was better than they were all year. They supposedly pick the best umps to work in the playoffs. why not pick the best ump there is, the camera.
I actually don't remember the whole top 10 homer list, but from what I remember it was moronic. Does anyone have the whole list?
Edmonds and Kent? It's only a year later and I don't even remember them. They are clearly behind Tito Landrum.
To talk about Fox and standards is an oxymoron but there has to be some criteria here. First of all: How can Gibson's homer beat Mazeroski's. Game 7 versus Game 1. That's a no-brainer.
Also any big homer in the world series is bigger than one not in the world series. As I recall, Willie Stargell hit a game-winning three run homer in the seventh inning of game 7 of the '79 World series. That is way bigger than most of the ones on the list. I'm sure there are other world series homers we can think of. Ed Sprague comes to mind.
Also, one that takes his team from behind and wins the game is bigger than one that breaks a tie. On that criteria Lenny Dykstra's homer in game 3 of the '86 NLCS was huge.
I'm a little tired of the letters accusing players of cheating for not correcting the umps' incompetence for them. Come on people. It is not cheating to take first base when the ump tells you to go there!
We can all agree that the ball hit the bat, that there was a phantom tag in the Stros-Cards series and -- except for a few skeptics like King -- that Josh Paul caught the third strike. But it's the ump who makes the calls and, as long as that is the case, that's got to be the end of the discussion. It is the ump's job not to be taken in by a good sales job. Where does it all end? Should the catcher say: "thanks for the called strike 3 but that pitch was a bit outside." Or is it cheating for the catcher to frame the pitch.
There is no rule against trying to sell a tag or feigning being hit by a pitch and as long as there's not -- which is hopefully forever -- it is not cheating to run to first base when directed to do so.
The dumbest argument I've heard so far is that the pitch to Dye was ball 4 anyway so the bad call really doesn't matter. No, it wasn't ball 4 under any standard. It couldn't have been ball 4 because the ball hit the bat. When the ball hits the bat and goes into foul territory it is by rule a foul ball. It would have been ball 4 if Dye hadn't started to swing and gotten his bat in the way, but that's not what happened.
Let's face facts. The ump blew the call and it helped the White Sox win the game. As King points out, we'll never know whether they would have won without the call, and there were other close calls that went the other way so you can't say the Sox didn't deserve to win or anything like that. But still the call stunk and, most importantly, it was not ball 4.
We're getting far afield here, but the record has to be set straight. The Music city miracle was, as the replay showed, the RIGHT call. In real time everyone I know thought it was a forward pass. Then, to all our surprise, replay revealed it was the right call. Remember that in that case, the "tie" would go toward the return team given that a parallel pass is OK. So, if years later you still think that was the wrong call, then the only explanations are (1) being blind as a bat (or a baseball ump) or (2) team bias.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
