I agree with the premise of King's exhorting the umps to get out in front of the instant replay issue before we have all the know-it-alls like McCarver and loudmouths like S.A. Smith clamoring for it in baseball. And as he says who knows what happens if that call is rules a tip, although we can say that it certainly WAS ball 4 if untouched and the guy WAS struggling with control issues.

I think there is something to be said for karma in baseball. I saw two Astros make ZERO attempt to get out of the way of two inside pitches in Game 1. While I know this is not cheating and certainly within the rules, the etiquette of the game is to avoid HBP if possible. I'm not saying the ump even for a millisecond thought about those calls, but on at least one of those earlier HBPs awarded to Houston there was precious little bodily contact. So maybe the umps are calling anything close this year HBP to cut down on the bean-ball and brushback stuff. Or maybe he just got it wrong.

Anyway - great Series so far and I hope Houston can make a run to get us back to the great South Side and we can hear more Jim Croce...

We discussed this regarding the Everett "tag" on Molina, but there's not always an umpire with a better view of the play. King, you're right about the play last night, but I don't think there was an ump with a better view of the Molina play. An ump in a booth watching video tape would have a better view, and if you think of that ump as just another ump that can be called upon to give a better ruling on the play, you don't need NFL style instant replay. And it need not take any longer than any other conference of umpires.

I feel like a broken record here, but I don't understand why my proposal would be such a bad idea.

King,

I fully agree with your analysis of the umpiring of the Dye play, except for one assumption: that it was clear to the naked eye that it hit his bat. That wasn't at all clear to me until Fox started showing it in super slow motion ad naseum. But I do agree that the umpire should have asked for help.

One thing should be pointed out: lost in this discuss is the fact that Dye didn't swing and the pitch SHOULD have been ball 4, which would have loaded the bases anyway. If it was ruled a foul, the Astros would have to be considered lucky to have avoided facing Konerko with the bases loaded (for the time being anyway). Could this have been part of the umpire's thought process?

Dave

I was hoping that King would pick up on how Fox's broadcast missed Houston's lead-off homer in the second inning. When Fox returned from its break the ball was already in the left field stands. No hitter coming to the plate, pitch delivery or other such bothersome incidentals. Maybe this happens so often that King thought it wasn't worth mentioning. While I was fuming and spluttering I tossed the remote to my wife and she switched over to West Wing.

On my TV (I am in St. Louis, watching on DirecTV), Fox cut short an "I live for this" promo and returned to the game with the pitch on its way to the plate. I saw Ensberg's swing and the flight of the ball.

As I understand it from my conversations with TV people about this issue in the past, some local stations put their own promos or ads in and return to the broadcast late. Since we're talking about, what, two seconds difference here, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

If the broadcast didn't come back for you until the ball was in the stands, what was on right before that? Was it the "I live for this" promo with the White Sox fan? And if so, did it go all the way through to the end of the promo?

Allow me to beat my horse again about sportsmanship. Forget consulting with other umps or instant replay...the call with Dye would never have happened if he hadn't cheated. In a case like that, nobody knows better than the batter whether he was hit by a pitch or whether it hit his bat. He pretended (ie. cheated) that it hit him. This is not a "veteran move". It is cheating. Where is the call for players to be accountable for this deception.

I realize that the players can't make all their calls. For example, a player would genuinely be uncertain as to whether he checked his swing or not. But there are certain cases - like getting hit by a pitch (or not) or making a tag (or not), where the player knows for sure, and if he would only come clean he would bail out the umps, and I'm pretty sure would earn everlasting laurels for good sportsmanship.

Is that what we really want though? For every call where the Ump is anything less than a 100% certain to huddle up with the rest of his crew and try to hash out a general consensus?

I've umpired a bit and working with other umps the only time conferences were of any use were on situations where there was a clear right and wrong. The A-Rod slap being a good example. On close judgement plays like Dye's or Everett's the reason that the Ump decided against the conference is because he knew with what I assume would be a professional certainty that the result of any such conference would result in "Well, I can't be certain but it looked like...." and "My best guess is...."

So are we really served by innumerable conferences that will rarely result in a more correct call or are we better served with a little false certainty that will, at the very least, give the Ump something to shout about when the Manager storms out of the dugout?

Because, I mean, if you think you've seen a Manager explode just wait until he hears "Well, none of us are entirely sure but the best we could figure was..."