Earlier this week human error prevented a historic event in the game of baseball. In the ninth inning umpire Jim Joyce botched a routine call at first base that cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game and part of baseball lore. Over the next 48 hours sport pundits, even political shows, debated what Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig should do. Some argued for awarding Galarraga a perfect game while others warned of a slippery slope if Selig were to do just that. Joyce admitted he blew the call and Galarraga, publicly, showed great class in handling the situation.
Bud Selig ruled that no reverse of the blown call will take place. Was this the right call? I think so. For many years of my life I loved to watch baseball but after the last strike I lost confidence in the game. Now there is talk of adding instant reply to the game even further than it is already. Do we need instant replay in baseball? Does it take away from the innocence of the game? To add instant replay into baseball is just wrong. The small imperfection's of the game, due to human intervention, is what makes the game so enjoyable. Besides, will instant replay be used at every close call? Will managers get three challenges a game and if they are successful get extra ones?
Leave the game alone. The ironic thing is that more people will recall this game because of the blown call. In five, ten or twenty years later would anyone recall who pitched the 21st Perfect game in baseball history? Most likely not but we will recall the game that should have been a perfect game.
I agree Selig did the right thing by not reversing the call. If he did it for the perfect game, why not for the botched Twins call the same night? Would people be so adament if the same play happened in the 5th inning of a 10 run blowout?
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is off the plate to me: "The small imperfection's of the game, due to human intervention, is what makes the game so enjoyable." There is nothing small about missing an out. Like you said, a historic event was prevented. It is either an out, or it's not, and the whole purpose of the game is to not make outs if you are the batter and get them if you are the pitcher.
I know the same can be said of the strike zone that changes based on ump, but that difference has been accepted by fans, players, and managers for decades. We all agree and accept that strike zones change. However, batters and pitchers can adjust appropriately. You can't make adjustments to being called out when you are safe.
Before you call to leave the game alone, shouldn't we wait to see the proposals. I think you just extend the ability of replay that applies to homeruns. The umps can decide if they want to review if a ball was fair or foul. Apply the same discretion to balls that may or may not have been caught or plays at the plate. Apply the same standard as football. The managers can ask, hopefully politely, for a review, but they can't demand one and the request doesn't have to be granted. Do not use it for balls and strikes though.
The technology is there, so why not improve the game. Doesn't being wrong when you can so easily be correct take away from the innocence of the game?
And I don't think people will remember this game in 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years. It won't be in the records books, so if there is a perfect game in 20 years, his name won't be included in the list of those who have thrown one.
Toph
Toph
ReplyDeleteI agree that his name will not be included in the record books but I do think baseball euthasist will talk about this game. While I agree that technology exists that will assist the umpires, just not liking the notion of slowing the game down any further. Would we then lose the funniest event of the baseball game; managers kicking dirt on home plate?
Yes, we would and the elimination of that is why the game wouldn't be any longer. It probably takes less time to review it, then to argue. Honestly, a play can be reviewed in 90 seconds. How much time is really added?
ReplyDelete