By Waldo
Editor’s note – This article originally appeared on AstrosConnection.com on July 27, 2001.
Boneheaded calls by sports officials are nothing new. No one has to look further than the January 17, 1999, NFC Championship game between the Minnesota Vikings and Atlanta Falcons to find a fantasic example. Going into overtime (and, hence, sudden death) at the HumpDome, the teams were tied at 21, and the Vikings had just missed a 38-yard field goal attempt at the end of regulation that would’ve sent them to Super Bowl XXXIII. After the team representatives and the referee had gathered for the coin toss, the Vikings called it in the air. “Tails.” The coin landed tails.
However, the referee instead indicated that the Falcons had won the toss. Crowd noise had been a factor throughout the entire game, and the referee apparently heard the Vikings call “heads” instead of “tails” (although it would be crass to blame the ref’s mistake on crowd noise). After a small argument between the Vikings and the referee, the Falcons elected to receive the kickoff. Eight plays later, they (ironically) punched a 38-yard field goal through the uprights to seal the 24-21 victory, the NFC Championship, and a Super Bowl berth.
Fast-forward to May 31, 1999. With the Florida Marlins trailing the St. Louis Cardinals 4-1 at home, Marlins outfielder Cliff Floyd hits a ball off the scoreboard in left-center. The umpires rule it a double, but the Marlins argue that it was a home run. After conferring, they reverse the call and allow Floyd to round the bases, prompting the Cardinals to protest. Crew chief Frank Pulli, feeling as if he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, made the controversial decision to delay the game for 5 minutes while he examined a replay. Seeing that the original call was the right one, he ruled the hit a double and made Floyd return to second base. Bud Selig later commented on the situation and ordered that the instant replay was never to be used again.
After watching the previous 4-game series between the Astros and Cubs, I’m not sure that I’ve seen more back-to-back games with such inconsistent calls by a home plate umpire. You ideally want two things in a home plate umpire, besides the ability to distinguish between “out” and “safe”: you want them to make the right ball and strike calls, and you want them to do it consistently. During the Cubs series, you would see Lieber getting the corner calls that Miller wasn’t, and sometimes it was the other way around. It happened for most of the series as well.
Of course, I’m not saying that this happens all the time, because it doesn’t. What I am saying is that steps should be taken to correct the mistakes that do happen, and in some cases prevent them. Am I likely to see changes like these implemented soon? Probably not. In fact, as long as Bud Selig is commissioner, Kent Bottenfield has a better chance of successfully completing a marathon than these plans do of being put into place. However, I think they would do a lot of good for baseball in the long run.
In this Rap, I focus a lot on the home plate umpire and his game behind the plate, but keep in mind that a lot of this would apply to any umpire.
1. Implement instant replay in some capacity
The NHL reserves for special situations only. In the NFL, the option is always available (except during the 2-minute warning) if you’re willing to risk giving up a timeout. Instituting some form of an instant replay would take great strides toward making the game more accurate. It seems like more and more calls are botched up these days simply because the ump isn’t paying enough attention or he has a bad angle. I know it’s not always the ump’s fault, but I think the right call should be made in every situation. A system much like the NFL’s would be needed so as to potentially discourage managers from invoking the instant replay; one option might be to give up pinch-hitting for a certain amount of outs or innings. Now perhaps that isn’t the best way to implement it, and granted, it would be a drastic change, but it could work.
I do not, however, believe that instant replay should be available for contesting ball and strike calls. This becomes far too cumbersome, and I think there are more effective ways to ensure that umpires are being accurate in that respect. More on that later.
2. Decide upon a definitive strike zone and enforce it to the fullest
If it’s one thing Bud Selig has done that I actually like, it’s his reintroduction of the high strike this year. However, I knew before the season started that the high strike wouldn’t be called consistently at all. And I was right. Fact is, with each umpire employing his own strike zone (and possibly several different ones during the course of a game), you’d be hard pressed to get anything called consistently. I, for one, find this unacceptable.
Strike zones can even change from pitch to pitch, depending on the situation. During a radio or TV broadcast, you will often hear the commentators talking about a pitcher on the mound who is struggling with his control. They’ll say, “If he’s anywhere close to the strike zone on this pitch, Umpire XYZ will likely give him the call.” I don’t know what’s worse: the fact that it happens in the first place, or the fact that it happens so often that we’ve become accustomed to it and can even predict it.
On that train of thought, we should also…
3. Hold umpires accountable for their mistakes
A lot of the problem with umpires today is that they aren’t really discouraged from making mistakes. They can call whatever strike zone they want and essentially have the exact same job security after the game as they did before. Steps should be taken so that umpires become more aware that someone is watching them over their shoulder. One easy way to do this is assign each umpire a number and simply put that number on their uniform. In replays, that number will be easily seen on their uniform so they can easily be identified. Then, any necessary action can be taken.
Finally, put that all together, and…
4. Use computers and instant replay to evaluate the accuracy of ball/strike calls
I’m sure that my opinion on this differs from those of many who frequent this web site. Being a computer nerd myself, of course I am inclined to support this. However, I can see no real logical reason NOT to support it. Such systems like Fox Sports’ PitchTrax and ESPN’s KZone are already being used by those networks to examine calls that may be questionable. Putting systems like this into mainstream use have many benefits.
First of all, the computer (with the assistance of the official scorer) could provide a printout listing all of the questionable calls made, where they were in reference to the plate and the batter, and even what kind of pitch it was. Such an analysis of the ump’s game would allow him to see where he is deficient, and would give him the chance to improve his calling from behind the plate. Instant replays would help facilitate this also.
Second, this printout would also be made available to the so-called Higher Order so that the umpires would be held accountable for the calls they make. If they continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly (a co-worker of mine refers to this as “experience”), then they’re fired. Simple as that.
Most importantly, the game of baseball is improved.
Am I suggesting that the need for umpires would eventually go away? Possibly. I would even go so far as to say that a computer (or network of computers) could successfully umpire a regular 9-inning game without human interaction on Opening Day 2003, if not sooner. However, I am also not suggesting that umpires should be left by the wayside completely. All I’m saying is that, with today’s technology, we can improve the umpires we have.
There are those who will argue, “The number of inconsistent calls evens out anyway, so we shouldn’t worry.” Perhaps that is true, but that still doesn’t change the fact that something wrong is happening and the umpires are getting away with it. Others will also argue that bringing technology into the game of baseball will tarnish its image as a “grand old game.” In response to that, I submit the following question. Which part of the grand old game would you rather keep: the ceremonial aspect or the accuracy?
Seems like a no-brainer to me.