The 2010 NFL Player on the Hot Seat Debate… It’s Sink or Swim Time for Leinart

June 14, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.

After a couple of World Cup debates last week, we’re switching gears and will slowly start to focus on American football. After all, it won’t be long before football season arrives. Regular season action starts in less than three months, with training camp about six weeks away. With that in mind, we’re looking at NFL players who are on the hot seat for the 2010 season.

Without a doubt, the hottest seat for any player belongs to Matt Leinart.

Leinart, who had no ties to any rent-free house while at Southern Cal, obviously came into the league with great fanfare. But, let’s face it. Up to this point in his career, he has been a bust. He’s thrown more interceptions than touchdowns. Not long after being handed the keys to the franchise, he had them taken from him by possible future Hall of Famer Kurt Warner. All Warner did was throw for 70 touchdowns the past three seasons and took the Cardinals to Super Bowl XLIII, a game the team would have won if not for a sensational catch by Santanio Holmes.

Now, Warner has retired and Leinart once again has the keys to the franchise. How is he going to do this time?

One thing is certain. Arizona has overcome the losing stigma that has been attached to the franchise for years. Two consecutive NFC West titles took care of that. It’s also important to note that it’s a different team than the one that took the field the past two seasons. Among other things, Pro Bowl wide receiver Anquan Boldin is no longer with the team, as he was traded to Baltimore this offseason after an extended contract dispute. That leads many to believe that Leinart could be in control of a more balanced offense than in years past. Beanie Wells is coming off a solid rookie season in 2009, and with coach Ken Whisenhunt’s background often showcasing a strong running game, it’s safe to assume that Wells and Tim Hightower may have an increased role in the offense.

To his credit, Leinart is putting in his time. Whisenhunt is reporting that Leinart has often showed at team facilities as early as 6:30a. He’s putting in the time studying the playbook, and is putting in hours with individual workouts with his receivers. Apparently he’s spending more time in the film room than the hot tub, which is what the old Leinart used to do. He has more responsibility now, and that leads to more pressure.

It’s definitely sink or swim time for Leinart. But, there isn’t much water in the desert. So, maybe it’s now or never time. This is quite possibly his last chance to show all of us that he is good enough to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Matt, it’s your time to write your own script.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Toughest World Cup Grouping Debate… The Group of Death

June 11, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

It is finally here!

The biggest sporting event of the summer kicks off today, as Host South Africa takes on Mexico to officially kick off the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

In the question of which World Cup grouping is the toughest, though, that question is EASILY answered by three words – Group. Of. Death.

There really isn’t much of a debate to this one, as much of the soccer-loving world (i.e. much of the world) already has unofficially dubbed the teams of Group G with such an ominous moniker, and I think it is almost impossible to argue with them.

Why is it the ‘Group of Death’? Group G claims two of the top five teams in the nation (Brazil and Portugal), as well as the Ivory Coast (arguably Africa’s best hope for a title contender in this tournament), and North Korea. Each of the Group G Squads claims their own superstar talent, and the two teams that survive this first round of games (no matter who they are) will be the two most battle-tested teams alive in the tournament, and both will be legitimate contenders to make a deep run in their chase for the Cup.

Sitting in the top-seeded spot (although that is only by technicality) is the Brazilian team, who are ranked number one in the World according to the FIFA World Rankings. This team, who last year beat the U.S. in come-from-behind fashion to claim the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup, already has five World Cup Championships to their name, and is led by one of the greatest players in the game today, the man simply known as Kaka.

Kaka, the 2007 World Player trophy winner, has one of the toughest shots in the game, and will certainly be a threat to score often during this 2010 World Cup tournament.

Standing in Brazil’s way, though, is the team from Portugal, who would have been clear favorites to win any of the other Groups in the tournament, had they not drawn so unfortunately. Currently ranked third in the World standings, Portugal claims their own star-studded roster, including Kaka’s Real Madrid teammate, Portugal’s team captain Cristiano Ronaldo. Ronaldo, whose speed on the field makes him nearly impossible to defend, claims what is likely the most dangerous foot in soccer.

Not far behind Portugal and Brazil, though, sits the Ivory Coast, who will be all too happy to pounce on the first mistake made by either of the Groups two favorites. Many have pegged the Ivory Coast as a dark horse contender who may even challenge for the cup, but of course, that would mean either Brazil or Portugal had failed to make it out of the first round.

Adding to the challenges for Ivory Coast is the recent injury for their star forward, Didier Drogba, whose return is not yet certain after having had surgery on his fractured arm last week. Drogba, who also leads England’s Chelsea club in Premier League play, netted an astonishing 44 goals last year in combined competition, and his presence (or lack thereof) on the field could be all the difference in the life or death of the Ivory Coast team.

Rounding out the Group is the North Korean team, who play the unfortunate role of longshot in this Group. Relatively untested, the North Korean team emerged as one of four qualifiers from the AFC, and will certainly have their work cut out for them if they hope to challenge in this first round of games.

Group G is called the Group of Death for a reason. Even the so-called favorites within the Group (whose rosters collectively comprise a who’s-who list of soccer’s elite) cannot be perceived as such when matched up against their competition.

Scoring will be high and the competition will be fierce. There are no free rides in Group G, and the squads that emerge victorious will certainly have earned their stripes in this one, as they will have already conquered legitimate cup contenders just to survive the first round.

This will be fun to watch!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Toughest World Cup Grouping Debate… Group H Is Cup’s Most Competitive

June 11, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

It may be deceiving, but often the most difficult part of these daily debates is choosing which side – literally, today – to argue. There is so much nuance, so much that is unique, that only the right choice of topic, or side of a topic, will be credible and authentic for you – the loyal readers (and you occasional ones, too).

Bleacher Fan jumped all over this topic, selecting Group G even before the idea was fully crystallized in the production meeting. But, he jumped the gun. With injuries besetting Brazil and Cote d’Iviore’s captain, Didier Drogba, now with a broken arm, Portugal is looking more and more like the favorite side.

I was able to ring in second with my selection, and I picked well. With uncertainty in Group G, Group H has been promoted to the lofty, yet well-earned title of toughest World Cup Group to win.

Group H consists of Chile, Honduras, Spain, and Switzerland. Three of those four teams are outstanding, and one is a legitimate upset threat – even in a stacked group like H.

Before analyzing some specifics about each team, there is another more top level view that proves the worthiness of Group H. Three of the four teams rank in the top 25 of Sports Illustrated’s Power Rankings (at least according to Grant Wahl… who we’re fans of here). Group H is the only group to boast this many top tier teams. This is really important, because only the top two teams out of each group proceed out of group play. Basically, it means that Group H, to start the World Cup off, is the most competitive group in the tournament. Three legitimately great teams – and one upset special in Honduras – comprise what will be a hotly contested group complete with a tremendous amount of talent… and no big injuries to speak of.

Group H has some outstanding players. In fact, they have arguably the best goalkeeper in the entire tournament, Spain’s Iker Casillas. Spain is arguably the number one team in the world, and Casillas has a lot to do with that. Expect a few clean sheets from him. Spain also has two of the top five mid-fielders in the tournament in Xavi Hernandez (one of the best players in the world) and Andres Iniesta. Hernandez is most at home in space, where he can be creative and feed players on all sides. When paired with Iniesta – who is small but incredibly quick and difficult to tackle – give Spain a huge advantage in possession and creativity when advancing the attack. Of course forward David Villa is no slouch, either. In 55 International caps he has 37 goals, a mark matched by very few in the history of International soccer.

While the group is not suffering from any major injuries, one injury that does exist is to Spain’s Fernando Torres. Many believe, however, that Torres’ injury is really a blessing in disguise for Spain. Torres’ absence forces Spain to cover a weakness when it plays an extra defender. Now the side can play five attacking mid-fielders with Villa and be the aggressors in every match.

I realize the majority of the players I have highlighted here player for Spain. That’s no accident, as Spain is incredibly good and has earned its world number one power ranking. But the other nations represented are talented as well.

Chile is a bit of a dark horse because it has a dark horse player waiting to break out in forward Humberto Suazo. Scoring ten goals in the qualifying tournament gets you labeled as a potential breakout star. Chile is also coached by Marcelo Biesla. That may be a name you recognize, as that is the same coach who led Argentina in 2002. The match between Chile and Spain will likely be exciting, up tempo, and full of scoring.

Switzerland seems to be a side that is relentlessly underrated in every World Cup. This gathering is no different. Switzerland is always the team that does not do anything extremely well, but handles the fundamentals of the sports with aplomb. Think of Switzerland’s MLB equivalent as the Minnesota Twins. The Twins are renowned for an ability to stick to the fundamentals, avoid mistakes, and capitalize when their competition makes errors. Switzerland also has an outstanding player on the wing in Tranquillo Barnetta. While he is no match for the attack-first approach from Spain and Chile, he can break open a match with a few nice runs and earned corner kicks.

Last is Honduras, the upset-minded side in the group. Honduras does not have the talent or the steadiness the other teams in the group have, but it is home to players from many professional leagues all around the world. Goalkeeper Noel Valladares will likely not earn any clean sheets because the team’s defense simply is not that strong – especially when considering the competition.

Surprises are always present at the World Cup, and Group H could provide one. Spain is a virtual lock to advance, but the battle between Chile and Switzerland is legitimate and will be excellent. We have seen it several times in the last several international tournaments, the favorite is not a lock to win. Spain must be careful in Group H and not become overconfident. There is enough talent for a surprise, making Group H the most difficult to win in the World Cup.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Toughest World Cup Grouping Debate… Grade A Challenge for Group A Teams

June 11, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

Now that the NBA Finals are winding down and the Stanley Cup Playoffs are over, the world can start focusing on the next big sporting event. That happens to be the World Cup, which begins today in South Africa.

In today’s debate, we are taking a look at the Groups of teams, trying to decide which will be the toughest to win. Now, to be quite frank, this is a difficult debate, but the toughest group to win will be…

wait for it…

wait for it…

Group A!

Group A consists of France, Uruguay, Mexico, and South Africa, and it is the only group to possess three teams ranked in the top 17 of the current FIFA rankings.

The French, currently ranked ninth in the FIFA rankings, certainly have experience and tradition on their side. They have played in two out of the past three finals and four out of the past seven semifinals. They haven’t looked all that impressive in many of their friendlies leading up to the World Cup, but with their experience and their tradition, they have to be considered a slight favorite in this group.

However, by no means do they appear to be a lock.

Uruguay, which is ranked 16th and qualified by sneaking in through the South American qualifying tournament, has very little tradition when it comes to the World Cup. They drew the tough task of facing the big bad wolf, France, in the opening draw, a team which they have not actually scored a goal against since 1966! It will be an uphill battle for sure, but they are not to be taken lightly.

Mexico, which comes in ranked 17th, has advanced to the World Cup for the fifth consecutive time. To prepare for playing in a hostile environment, Mexico scheduled road matches against England, the Netherlands, and Italy. They are going to need to rely on that experience in the opening round. Any guesses on who they drew first? How about host country South Africa?

To call South Africa a soccer powerhouse would be like calling the Cleveland Browns a football dynasty (That is for you Bleacher Fan) – It is just not true (Editor’s Note – At least they WERE a football dynasty. The Atlanta Falcon’s can’t even claim THAT much!).

While not the lowest ranked team in the field, standing at 86th (that belongs to North Korea at 105), South Africa certainly has an uphill battle. However, it will be interesting to see if they get some type of emotional boost in the opening match against Mexico. It is also interesting to note that a host country has NEVER lost its opening round match.

Group A will be the toughest to win.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The MLB Expanding Instant Replay Debate Verdict

June 11, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.

This is a difficult verdict to write. While I realize my comments in this article will not swing the momentum within MLB’s headquarters, the discussion does need a measure of reality, and TSD is able to provide it. These arguments are as interesting as they are important to how fans and media perceive and understand baseball. Fortunately, the writers today have different perspectives on fandom which are perfect for this argument.

Babe Ruthless clearly states in his argument that the increased use of replay would “do anything but improve baseball.” He is right in pointing out of the many unique elements of baseball – every pitch in every at bat is truly unique, even snowflake-esque. Expanded use of replay fights originality.

I do not, however, buy into Babe Ruthless’ argument about how expanded replay slows down an already slow game. This is obvious, but the whole idea of replay is based on the premise that the trade off between accuracy and prolonging a game is worthwhile. The total amount of time a game takes to play is insignificant here.

I agree with much of what Bleacher Fan writes in principle. I disagree, however, with the notion that human opinion would never be in danger of being eliminated. Babe Ruthless is correct in his inference that replay expansion is a slow erosion and takeover of baseball, not a targeted situation-by-situation solution.

Bleacher Fan also mentions that umpires will always be in control of the strike zone. While I agree to a point, QuesTec strike zone monitoring has been a real part of the game for several seasons now. Sure, it can easily be viewed as needed accountability for umpires. But it also can be seen as the first domino in a long, slow decline toward computers completely controlling strikes zones, too. The strike zone is perhaps the most consistent area of the game where umpire humanity is on display, and MLB has already taken measures to mitigate its impact. Expanding replay introduced the real possibility of further computer control of the strike zone.

I understand Bleacher Fan’s sarcasm that this particular situation is a “statistical catastrophe.” While the situation isn’t ideal, however, a more historically significant situation should not be treated any differently, even if a bad call would decide game seven of the World Series. The slippery slope of allowing technology to take over baseball is too dangerous to the purity of the game. Plus, a little controversy is good for attention. Just ask college football.

I agree with Bleacher Fan’s reference to the unearned run. He is right that, where possible, baseball is proactive about using statistics and other measurements of human performance to properly influence the game. But, there is a substantial difference between instituting a statistical measurement to protect against human error and bringing in a technological precedent to do it.

The danger in this debate, and Bleacher Fan’s argument, is that allowing technology deeper into the game means the history of the game can be rewritten. Not that it will happen immediately, but that the door is cracked. Why not just expunge the accolades and statistics of players who took steroids from the record books, too? Some reading this may be vehemently nodding, but remember the same principle applies. Baseball is fundamentally human. Players who took performance enhancing drugs made human decisions that impacted the game of baseball. They may not get into the Hall of Fame as a result (another subjective influence in baseball), which is proper, but they are still a part of baseball history. And nothing should change that.

Ultimately what swings this decision in the direction of Babe Ruthless is his point about how emotional baseball is for the fans, and how that native emotion helps fans better identify with their chosen team. In fact, it is the inescapable emotion of baseball that I believe would really appeal to Bleacher Fan’s emotional nature. The idea that Galarraga was robbed by Joyce may very well serve as a rallying point for the Tigers. Manager Jim Leyland can easily make the “it’s us against the world” argument to his team, and the players can authentically believe it. Technology dampens emotion, which is something baseball cannot afford to do without.

No matter how much technology is injected into sports, nothing can replace human nature and the human element, in all of its glorious imperfection. There is a tipping point here. Eventually, how much of the game is decided by technology, and how much by humanity? If Bud Selig allowed replay to overturn this call, and if baseball greatly expanded its use of replay, recorded history could be revised to a “more perfect history,” and there would be very little need for umpires at all, eventually. As replay is added to eliminate one type of flawed call, there is no stopping its expansion to two calls, then three, then 15, then every possible situation. Once the first few dominos fall, replay’s expansion is unstoppable.

Baseball is many things, including a celebration of humanity. As appealing as it seems to use technology to ultimately judge fairness, Babe Ruthless is correct that the infusion of technology into baseball serves only to undermine the many principles and life lessons so many rely on it for.

Life is predominantly gray area. No sport better demonstrates that reality better than baseball. And it should always be that way.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The MLB Expanding Instant Replay Debate

June 10, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.

It only took an instant.

In a single moment, Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga knew he threw a perfect game – MLB’s unprecedented third this still young season. In that same moment a veteran, respected umpire in Jim Joyce personified humanity by blowing the call, disappointing Galarraga and keeping history at bay.

Given the opportunity for review, MLB commissioner Bud Selig declined to overturn Joyce’s call. Selig’s reasons were simple enough – overturning the call would mean questioning the humanity of the game, and that is something Selig will not see further compromised on his watch.

Some argue, however, that baseball is too quick to preserve its humanity, and not aggressive enough to ensure the accuracy of a game’s outcome with a broader use of instant replay.

Fortunately The Sports Debates is perfectly equipped to address such deep questions. Today’s debate topic: Should Major League Baseball expand the use of instant replay to prevent human mistakes from wrongly influencing a game’s outcome and history?

Babe Ruthless – ever the baseball purist – will argue that humanity is part of baseball and the expansion of instant replay is a mistake. Bleacher Fan will argue that MLB must modernize the game by protecting it’s outcomes with an expanded use of instant replay.

Okay, gents, play ball!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The MLB Expanding Instant Replay Debate… Do the Right Thing

June 10, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Last week, Armando Galarraga SHOULD have gone down in history as only the 21st person in 130 years to pitch a perfect game in the Majors. Instead, he (along with umpire Jim Joyce) will go down in infamy as having a perfect game cruelly ripped away at the 27th out, thanks to the element of CORRECTIBLE human fallibility.

More than 17,000 people witnessed live that Cleveland Indians youngster Jason Donald, after 26 consecutive hitters for the Cleveland Indians had already been retired, was clearly thrown out at first base by a full step. In addition to those 17,000 witnesses were multiple cameras that captured the event as it played out. They, too, clearly indicate that Jason Donald was out at first base.

Unfortunately, there was one measly person among the THOUSANDS of fans in attendance who in the heat of the moment did NOT believe that the throw beat Jason Donald to the bag. Despite the OVERWHELMING evidence from the 17,000 fans and the HD slow-motion camera angles that are irrefutable in their proof – contradicting that one person’s call – this one man’s opinion outweighs them all. And although the one man ALSO acknowledged after seeing the incontrovertible proof, thanks to technology that is READILY available, that his call was mistaken and that Donald was, in fact, out at first, an irresponsible, foolish, and outdated rule in baseball prohibits the correct judgment from being rendered – EVEN THOUGH that means an incorrect and flawed result is recorded into the history books!

But this debate isn’t about criticizing officials (fortunately, tomorrow’s is). Umpires in baseball have a thankless job, and they perform exceptionally well for the most part. This debate is about criticizing a system that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge a flaw that very seriously damages both the credibility and the quality of the product they produce.

Officiating opinion is a very real part of the game, and it will never be eliminated. Between the subjectivity of a strike zone, the bang-bang nature of a pick-off play, or the fact that umpires can find themselves out of position to make an ideal call, for example, players have to understand and accept that decisions will be made and they may not necessarily agree.

However, when an errant call is made in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, and the cost of that mistake bears HISTORICAL significance, then Major League Baseball OWES it to the players, fans, and the substantial and revered history, to get it right.

I agree that this blown call will not alter the course of the 2010 season at all, but it still cheats history (and cheats Galarraga from the recognition he rightfully EARNED). This situation is nonetheless indicative of a very real problem in baseball that will NEVER go away on its own. So rather than wait for a situation to arise which DOES artificially and incorrectly alter the outcome of a full season, MLB commissioner Bud Selig has an opportunity to act PRO-actively, rather than RE-actively. He can get in front of the situation and PREVENT a statistical catastrophe from taking place.

Ironically, baseball has ALREADY been operating for over 100 years in a system that ensures a pitcher will not be penalized for another’s mistakes. It is called the UN-earned run. If a hitter reaches first base when they SHOULDN’T have, because a player on the field committed an error, the pitcher’s stat line is still protected. If that player should cross home plate safely, the run is not charged to the pitcher’s ERA.

The game of baseball acknowledges that the element of human error is possible. It also acknowledges that the error should not negatively impact the historical significance of what the pitcher did WHILE pitching. Why not apply that same principle to when the umpire commits an error?!

Part of what makes the game so beloved among its fan base is its history, but the game can never be fully respected as long as that history willingly tolerates and accepts CORRECTIBLE results that are flawed and invalid.

A policy that allows for the expanded use of instant replay in baseball will provide a safeguard for the game of baseball. Instead of supporting the FIRST call that is made on the field, the game should support the CORRECT call.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The MLB Expanding Instant Replay Debate… Baseball is Perfect, Even if Umpires Are Not

June 10, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

Armando Galarraga threw 8 2/3 innings of flawless baseball before a blown call at first base ended his bid for a perfect game. And… I could not care less.

As I have stated so many times before, life isn’t fair! The kid got robbed, that much is undeniable at this point. Replays prove that the ball clearly beat the runner, and even the umpire that made the call, Jim Joyce, admitted he made the wrong call. Sure, it sucks. But it’s part of the game. At some point in time everyone gets screwed by a bad call or two. What athlete, professional or amateur, can honestly say they never ended up on the wrong end of a bad call?

(Pause for silence and subtle cricket chirping noise.)

As frustrating as this situation is, it is also part of what makes baseball so great.

My competition for this debate, Bleacher Fan, would have you believe that baseball should lessen the subjective aspects of the game and replace the calls made by men with those made by machines. He, and other critics, are calling for broad and sweeping changes for the use of replay in baseball. They are holding up Galarraga as a martyr in their war against the human traditions of the game, claiming that the expanded use of replay would purge the fallibilities of the game. The increased use of replay in baseball would do anything BUT improve the game.

The human aspects of baseball are an essential part of the beauty of the sport. Even though the rules remain the same, every pitch of every at bat is unique. Each play is exceptionally distinct not just because of the players in the field, on the mound, and in the batters box, but because of the man behind the plate as well. With each debatable pitch there is a palpable tension that rises up in fans when the ball seems to blur across the edge of the strike zone. Is it a ball? Is it a strike? We hold our breath until the umpire gives us the call. The drama of that moment is truly spectacular. Similarly, the suspense surrounding every close call at the plate or along the base paths is no less breath taking. These moments set baseball a part as a grand game of anticipation. No other game seems to hang in the balance of the subtle nuances of interpretation quite the same way baseball does. But, that is a blessing and not a curse.

The human aspects of baseball, even its imperfections, are important to the appeal and value of the game. Arguing balls and strikes, or whether a player is safe or out, is part of what makes the game great. Reveling in the thrill of a close call that falls in the favor of your team, or being outraged as you protest the injustice of a bad, call helps fans connect emotionally with their team. It is part of what turns mere spectators into fanatical followers and devoted diehards. Fans actually live out the saga of the sport vicariously through the lucky breaks, blown calls, and all the “right” calls as well.

Replay is not a panacea for the “flaws” of baseball. If anything, its increased use strips the game of its human aspects and creates new problems. Admittedly, broader use of replay would help to get some missed calls corrected, but not all of them. Does the NFL still have its fair share of bad calls even when using a fairly comprehensive replay system? Absolutely. I would bet that at one time or another every NFL fan has watched a replay of a challenged call and ended up disagreeing with the replay, so you cannot just proclaim the use of replay a cure-all for sports.

More frequent use of replay serves to unnaturally prolong what is already a rather slow sport. Baseball is already a long and sometimes slow sport. The introduction of more replay timeouts would only serve to slow the game down. Remember, unlike in the NFL, MLB replay challenges are not bound by the parameters of a time limit. I have never heard a football fan rejoice that an intense game was artificially interrupted by a TV timeout.

Replay simply can’t undo every unintentional wrong. I won’t be so cliché as to employ a slippery slope defense, but there is no way of knowing when a call will alter the course of a game. So the only real way to ensure no one is shorthanded is to review every call. I am serious. Consider this. Had Jim Joyce blown the call after two outs in the sxith it still would have been bad, but who is to say that Galarraga would have kept his composure to finish out a perfect game from that point, or even a no hitter had the play been reversed. Unnatural game stoppages interrupt a player’s rhythm. Think frequent spontaneous rain delays, but worse.

Some would argue that the botched Galarraga call undermines the entire integrity of the game. I answer those critics by pointing out that the blown call actually highlighted one of the baseball’s shining moments of upstanding character. The most significant part of the whole situation is not that Galarraga’s record will lack a perfect game, but the way he and the umpire responded with the utmost character. Both he and Joyce acted with class and dignity that has become a rarity in professional sports. Few, if any, have addressed the fact that the blown Galarraga call did not alter the outcome of the game, but rather the pitcher’s statistics and accolades. Is that really what the game is about? The answer is a resounding no. Galarraga got a raw deal, at least temporarily. Since the near perfect game he has been compensated with a new car, public praise for poise under duress, and more notoriety and exposure than others who have accomplished the feat he came so close to pulling off. (Does anyone even remember that Roy Halladay went perfecto recently? And who outside of Chicago, besides President Obama, remembers that Mark Buehrle was flawless last year? Or Dallas Braden? I think I’ve made my point.)

When you really stop to consider it, baseball’s little imperfections are not really imperfections at all. Blown calls teach valuable lessons. They teach players how to respond to adversity and cope with circumstances beyond their control. When a young athlete slides into a bag, beating a tag by a fraction of a heartbeat, but is called out, he has a choice. He can pout, argue, and throw a temper tantrum, or he can pick himself up, dust himself off, and get ready to go back out there. That’s an intangible aspect of the game that replay makes no allowances for.

Replay fails to improve the credibility and validity of baseball. It cheapens and devalues human importance in the sport. If I want to watch officials second guess and nitpick issues to death I would watch CSPAN. I watch baseball for the suspense and anticipation. The crack of the bat, the plays at the plate, and the controversial calls… good, bad, or ugly.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Biggest Officiating Screw Up Debate… Do You Believe in Bad Officiating?

June 9, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

The semifinal game of the 1980 Winter Olympics between the United States and USSR is considered the greatest sports moment in American History. Al Michaels even went so far as to call the American’s victory over the Soviets a “miracle.”

Rather than refer to that as some sort of divine happening, though, I think of it more as Karmic retribution, where the world was correcting a situation gone wrong eight years earlier on a basketball court in Munich.

In a reversal of roles, it was the Americans who had assumed the role of unstoppable juggernaut as they prepared to face their Cold War opposition in the 1972 Munich Olympics. The American Basketball Team to this point had never lost a game in Olympic competition, carrying a 63-0 all-time record, and SEVEN consecutive Gold Medals, into the 1972 Final against the USSR.

But thanks to the horrendous officiating that took place as the clock ticked to 0:00, the U.S. lost a Gold Medal that they rightfully held claim to in a controversial series of officiating blunders that would go down in history as being the worst blown call(s) of all time.

With just 0:03 left on the clock, USSR led the Americans 49-48. Thanks to a foul by the Soviets, though, American guard Doug Collins found himself at the free-throw line facing down the two most pressure-filled baskets of his life.

Despite that immense pressure, he sank the first of his two shots, tying the game at 49-49. That is when everything fell apart.

The Phantom Horn

As Collins was set to shoot his second free-throw, the official scorer sounded the buzzer, but nobody seemed to hear it, including Collins who made the shot, giving the U.S a 50-49 lead.

Nobody can sufficiently answer why the buzzer sounded, but the officials SHOULD have paused the game at least long enough to settle that question BEFORE allowing the game to proceed.

The Technical No-Call

Because Olympic Basketball rules prohibited a timeout after a second free-throw was made, the clock started immediately, and the Soviets were forced to rush the ball down court. However, the Soviet coach, insistent that his team had called time out PRIOR to Collins’ second shot (arguably the reason the buzzer sounded) stormed onto the court in protest.

The officials FINALLY stopped the clock, with 0:01 remaining in the game.

Ultimately they decided that Collins’ shot was legal, and that no timeout had been called. At that point, since the Officials had determined that Collins’ shot was good, the Soviet coach SHOULD have been charged with a Technical Foul for running onto the playing area, and only 0:01 should have been left on the playing clock.

What ACTUALLY happened, though, was that no Technical would be called, and the Soviets benefitted from a de facto time out that they did not deserve to draw up a play while it was all sorted out.

Clock Error #1

Before play resumed, an Olympic official had determined that the full THREE seconds, not just one, should have been added back onto the clock in light of the stoppage of play.

After the game, though, it was determined that this official did NOT actually have the authority to impact that kind of a change during play, and the clock SHOULD have been left at 0:01.

Clock Error #2

After the Olympic official incorrectly ordered that the game clock be reset to 0:03, the scorer mistakenly set the clock time to 0:50, a mistake that once again was not caught, and play proceeded.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try Again

Even though the clock had been mistakenly reset to 0:50, the ball was inbounded by the Soviets, who passed the ball down court and missed a shot as a buzzer sounded.

The Americans (again) thought they had won the game, but the call was (again) reversed in favor of the Soviets. The buzzer was apparently sounded to stop play so that the clock could be reset, but the referees on the court failed in their duties once more, allowing play to commence after having initially missed the clock error.

Enforcing a Rule that Doesn’t Exist

Before the Soviets inbounded for a THIRD time, referee Renato Righetto ordered the American defender on the ball to back off, allowing the Soviet player an unobstructed opportunity to inbound the pass. The problem was that Righetto enforced a rule that does not exist in International play. Still, the video clearly shows the American defender backing away from the inbound pass at Righetto’s insistence, also ordering his teammates back in an attempt to avoid a Technical Foul that would not, and COULD not have been called.

Third Try is a Charm

The clock was once again reset to 0:03, and the Soviets were given their THIRD attempt to complete this final inbound pass. Only this time, after two failed attempts that SHOULD have ended the game, they hit a last-second shot to win the game 51-50.

The US team, in protest, refused to accept their Silver Medals and still argue that they had won the Gold. Supporting the American side, Righetto also refused to sign the official scoring sheet.

All of these protests would be in vain, though, as it would be the USSR standing atop the podium.

The team of officials responsible for supervising play in a Championship game at a world-wide competition failed not once, but SIX times, to live up to their expectations and correctly call a game. The Soviet Team had committed one technical foul that they were never charged with, and missed two baskets, while the U.S. team was forced to abide by rules which were non-existent, all over a period of six seconds that should have only taken three, and twice were given undeserved reprieves for all of their mistakes.

The Miracle on Ice wasn’t a Miracle at all – it was PAYBACK!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Biggest Officiating Screw Up Debate… Just Another One Hit Shutout

June 9, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan.

I am the kind of guy who often gets really upset at officials or referees. To some extent I think we all are.

I can think of many blown calls (in my biased opinion) that cost the teams I was rooting for possible championships, and I really feel that last week’s incident involving Jim Joyce and Armando Galaraga has gotten enough coverage as it is. Part of me feels really bad for Jim Joyce, especially after reading this story, but to me it does not hide the fact that it is without a doubt the biggest officiating blown call in the history of sports.

Like many who were watched live, I remember quite well what I was doing. I was flipping through the channels and received a text saying “Tigers pitcher has perfect game through 8.” I immediately flipped it over to ESPN, knowing they would have live bonus coverage, and was not disappointed.

I watched in amazement as centerfielder Austin Jackson, who was playing in shallow center to take away any bloop hits, miraculously tracked down a fly ball out in the deepest part of left-center field. Then, one out later, came the play that those watching and playing will never forget. Indians batter Jason Donald hit a ground ball to Miguel Cabrera’s right. Cabrera fielded the ball and threw to first, where Galarraga was covering.

Fundamentals had just helped Galarraga pitch the 21st perfect game in MLB history (and the third this year after Dallas Braden and Roy Halladay)…

What? Safe? Are you kidding me? He was out!

A quick replay showed that, indeed, Donald really was out at first. I could not believe I had just witnessed that!

I have actually experienced a perfect game in person, as I was in attendance in Atlanta on May 18, 2004 when Randy Johnson mowed down the Atlanta Braves rather easily. It truly is an amazing experience to witness, and it is something the 17,738 missed out on last week in Detroit. However, if I was a fan that was at the game, I would be bragging that I witnessed a 28-out perfect game!

Unfortunately, that is not how it is going to go down in the record books as Bud Selig has decided to not go back and give Galarraga his perfect game (much to Bleacher Fan’s dismay).

It was a butchered call of epic proportions.

To his credit, Joyce quickly admitted that he blew the call and I really believe he has gained a lot of respect back over the past week. Even the fans at Comerica Park in Detroit mostly cheered for him the following day. But despite the sentimental feelings expressed about the situation, it was still a blown call, and unfortunately for Joyce, it is going to go down as the biggest blown call in the history of sports.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.