Hey, I have an idea! Let's go into the Summer running and not catch our breath! At least that's what it feels like right now. While I sit here, I have brownies in the oven, which will be a part of the Team WACC potluck at the Relay for Life at Cal High. Traci is there right now probably walking or running her legs off.
In a little while, we'll headed over to the house of one of our pastor's at church who just graduated with his Master's Degree from Bethel Seminary. He's probably the pastor I know best at church, so it should be fun to go celebrate with him.
Tomorrow is Fathers Day, so we're hosting our annual Fathers Day BBQ. The yard is ready to go since I mowed and edged yesterday. Boy, did it need it! It's always fun having the BBQ here on Fathers Day. This year will be a little more fun that it has been the past couple of years because Traci's brother and his family have moved back down here from Colorado. SO instead of my kids being the only ones, they will have their 3 cousins, which they love hanging out with, here to play with.
If I may (yes I can...it's my blog!) I'm going to go off on a little tangent. Yes tomorrow is Fathers Day, but I don't expect special treatment, which is where I have a problem with some people. To me, Fathers Day is another day. To some people, they expect to be treated special on a "special" day like this. I don't take that approach because if I do and things don't go exactly the way I would want them to go, I would be really upset and Fathers Day wouldn't be any good, which means I would rarely enjoy Fathers Day and then have nothing to look forward to when it comes around each year. With two kids (girls), there will inevitably be some drama at some point in the day. Get my drift? There are some people that expect to be the center of attention on a special day and that kind of annoys me. And then there are the people that expect to be the center of attention EVERY day. I don't want to even go there, so I'll leave it at that.
Friday's have pretty much become Frugos Friday since we discovered it about a month ago or so. The girls always like it, and so do Traci and I. It's just fun and is really good. Also, they sell bottled water for $1! That's an awesome price, especially since it's .7 liters.
It's been an eventful month so far besides everything coming up, including me and Traci's 11th anniversary a week from today. Oh the joys of being poor...we'll do something local without kids and make the most of it. It worked out pretty well last year and we had a lot of fun. Skyler finished her first year of preschool last week which means she has one more year of preschool before she hits kindergarten and we save $350 each month! Courtney just finished kindergarten yesterday and she is very excited to be a first grader now. She did amazingly well this year. We are very proud of her.
Well, the brownies are almost done, which means I need to get ready to go. TTFN
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Get Over It!
Since the bad umpire call that blew the perfect game for Tigers' pitcher Armando Galarraga, there have been a lot of people throwing out ideas of instant replay, reversing the umpire's call to award the pitcher a perfect game and other crazy ideas (such as firing the umpire), I thought I would weigh in with my opinion of the whole situation. I though Bill Plaschke's article on this whole event (in the LA Times) was a great article. While I don't agree with him an all points, he supports his case very well. That's probably why he's writing for the LA Times. (Check out the article here.)
In my eyes, the two big questions that have come out of this whole situation are these: 1) Should the call (at first base) be reversed and therefore give the pitcher credit for a perfect, which would be only the 21st ever in baseball history? and 2) Should instant replay be used on a broader basis? Well, here are my thoughts and opinions.
Question 1: Should the call be reversed?
This one is simple in my mind...NO!!!! If baseball was to reverse this call, there would be a bigger than life can of worms opened up which would be more annoying than anything. Besides, as soon as the game was over, the umpire in question, Jim Joyce, asked to take a look at the play, apparently without any prompting. As soon as he reviewed the play, he admitted that he missed the call and that when he made the call he honestly thought the runner was safe. (If you have seen a replay of the play, you will also see that the runner was clearly out.) Put simply: Joyce did his job. Umpires are as human as the rest of us. We have all made mistakes and that will never change. Some of the mistakes may have bigger impacts than others, but that's the way it is.
Also, if this call is reversed, how many other calls will people want to see reversed? Missed calls have been a part of the game as long as it has existed. As a matter of fact, some of those missed calls are a big part of history, as this one will now be. What's done is done. Let's accept it for what it is, no matter how wrong it may seem, and move on. Joyce and Galarraga have done that, why shouldn't we? They both realize what happened, and how unfortunate it was, but they hold no grudges, have hugged and shook hands and are moving on. Joyce has been in tears on multiple occasions already. He feels bad for the mistake. He manned up and took responsibility for the botched call. That's more than a lot of us do.
Another issue with reversing the call is that the umpires lose the power of the game. Allowing someone who is not an umpire to reverse the call, such as Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, would undermine the umpires' authority. If the umpires lose their authority, the potential for players and coaches and managers to always question the umpires could get out of control. I'm not saying this would happen, but it seems like a possibility. And while we're headed down this road, how many players, coaches, etc. would then appeal to the Commissioner to overturn other calls when they happen?
Question 2: Should instant replay be used on a broader basis?
This one is not as simple in my mind and it will take some explanation, but I think the answer should be YES!!! Currently, instant replay is only used when a home run is in question. Was it fair or foul? Did a fan interfere with it? Did it really clear the fence? I think instant replay has been well-used so far. I have seen a number of home runs upheld and I have seen some overturned. Every instance when I have seen it used, it appears the ultimate call has been the correct one.
While I think the use of instant replay should be expanded, I think there are also limitations that would need to put into place. I think it should be available for use on all plays, except for calling balls and strikes. Since there is no way to get a head-on shot of the strike zone, it would not make sense to use it there. The view from the traditional center field camera is above and off to the side of the alignment of the pitcher and batter. Even the projected strike zones used on Fox ESPN and the like are not the most accurate. Besides, they only show the strike zone going up to the belt, which in and of itself is inaccurate.
People have said that the expansion of instant replay use would slow down the game, and this is true. However, if you put the right restrictions in place, it wouldn't have that much effect on the length of the game. I would propose allowing each manager/team two requests/challenges (to use the term from football) for review per game, regardless of the number of innings played. I think by restricting to two reviews per team per game, that will force the manager to decide if the play is really worth challenging. Once the game is over, there are no more challenges, unless there is an immediate challenge on the last play.
You may think I'm contradicting myself based on my statements from the first question and answer (about us all being imperfect), but I figure that if we are given the opportunity to correct our mistakes, why not do it? And I think you have to limit the number of challenges since unlimited would truly make some games a lot longer. (Don't get me started on why the Yankees and Red Sox seem to be incapable of playing a game in less than three and a half hours!)
So in summary, no the call should not be overturned and yes I think the use of instant replay should be expanded. All the media attention being given to this has been somewhat blown out of proportion. The two individuals who were involved have made up and moved on with life. Let those who run baseball make the ultimate decision. Everybody else just needs to get over it.
In my eyes, the two big questions that have come out of this whole situation are these: 1) Should the call (at first base) be reversed and therefore give the pitcher credit for a perfect, which would be only the 21st ever in baseball history? and 2) Should instant replay be used on a broader basis? Well, here are my thoughts and opinions.
Question 1: Should the call be reversed?
This one is simple in my mind...NO!!!! If baseball was to reverse this call, there would be a bigger than life can of worms opened up which would be more annoying than anything. Besides, as soon as the game was over, the umpire in question, Jim Joyce, asked to take a look at the play, apparently without any prompting. As soon as he reviewed the play, he admitted that he missed the call and that when he made the call he honestly thought the runner was safe. (If you have seen a replay of the play, you will also see that the runner was clearly out.) Put simply: Joyce did his job. Umpires are as human as the rest of us. We have all made mistakes and that will never change. Some of the mistakes may have bigger impacts than others, but that's the way it is.
Also, if this call is reversed, how many other calls will people want to see reversed? Missed calls have been a part of the game as long as it has existed. As a matter of fact, some of those missed calls are a big part of history, as this one will now be. What's done is done. Let's accept it for what it is, no matter how wrong it may seem, and move on. Joyce and Galarraga have done that, why shouldn't we? They both realize what happened, and how unfortunate it was, but they hold no grudges, have hugged and shook hands and are moving on. Joyce has been in tears on multiple occasions already. He feels bad for the mistake. He manned up and took responsibility for the botched call. That's more than a lot of us do.
Another issue with reversing the call is that the umpires lose the power of the game. Allowing someone who is not an umpire to reverse the call, such as Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, would undermine the umpires' authority. If the umpires lose their authority, the potential for players and coaches and managers to always question the umpires could get out of control. I'm not saying this would happen, but it seems like a possibility. And while we're headed down this road, how many players, coaches, etc. would then appeal to the Commissioner to overturn other calls when they happen?
Question 2: Should instant replay be used on a broader basis?
This one is not as simple in my mind and it will take some explanation, but I think the answer should be YES!!! Currently, instant replay is only used when a home run is in question. Was it fair or foul? Did a fan interfere with it? Did it really clear the fence? I think instant replay has been well-used so far. I have seen a number of home runs upheld and I have seen some overturned. Every instance when I have seen it used, it appears the ultimate call has been the correct one.
While I think the use of instant replay should be expanded, I think there are also limitations that would need to put into place. I think it should be available for use on all plays, except for calling balls and strikes. Since there is no way to get a head-on shot of the strike zone, it would not make sense to use it there. The view from the traditional center field camera is above and off to the side of the alignment of the pitcher and batter. Even the projected strike zones used on Fox ESPN and the like are not the most accurate. Besides, they only show the strike zone going up to the belt, which in and of itself is inaccurate.
People have said that the expansion of instant replay use would slow down the game, and this is true. However, if you put the right restrictions in place, it wouldn't have that much effect on the length of the game. I would propose allowing each manager/team two requests/challenges (to use the term from football) for review per game, regardless of the number of innings played. I think by restricting to two reviews per team per game, that will force the manager to decide if the play is really worth challenging. Once the game is over, there are no more challenges, unless there is an immediate challenge on the last play.
You may think I'm contradicting myself based on my statements from the first question and answer (about us all being imperfect), but I figure that if we are given the opportunity to correct our mistakes, why not do it? And I think you have to limit the number of challenges since unlimited would truly make some games a lot longer. (Don't get me started on why the Yankees and Red Sox seem to be incapable of playing a game in less than three and a half hours!)
So in summary, no the call should not be overturned and yes I think the use of instant replay should be expanded. All the media attention being given to this has been somewhat blown out of proportion. The two individuals who were involved have made up and moved on with life. Let those who run baseball make the ultimate decision. Everybody else just needs to get over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)