Post by sharksrog on Oct 29, 2013 12:16:12 GMT -5
Games three and four of the World Series were each decided by plays that rarely end a game -- especially such a key game.
Which brings up the old point: Should an umpire of a referee "decide" a game by making a call late in a game?
Particularly in the obstruction case, the umpire "decided" the game. Without his call of obstruction, the winning run would have been out at the plate.
Although it is an unpopular point of view, I have long made the case that an official decides the game only if he DOESN'T make the call because it is late in the game.
The popular belief is that late in a game the official shouldn't call something that doesn't HAVE to be called, since it might affect the game's outcome. Now THAT I agree with -- although I also believe he shouldn't call it at any other point of the game either.
Call the game the same way at the end as at the beginning as in the middle. Otherwise it is THEN that the game becomes unfair.
I was disappointed in my fellow basketball refs when we discussed a late-game play in a tournament game officiated by our association. A team went ahead with just seconds to go and then knocked the ball away so time would run off the clock and the go-ahead team could get its defense back. The vast majority of referees agreed that a technical foul shouldn't have been called in that instance.
While normally I would simply issue a warning in a similar situation, I felt strongly the technical should have been called, for two reasons.
First, the rule book says that a technical rather than a warning should be issued if the knocking the ball away is INTENTIONAL, which the officials agreed it was in this case.
Second, the offending team had ALREADY received an official warning for knocking the ball away earlier in the game. The rule book specifies that the second time the infraction occurs, a technical rather than another warning is to be issued.
If a technical isn't going to be called on the second infraction, what is the point of issuing he warning in the first place.
The "don't let the referees decide the game" mentality was at work here, but I think it was that very mentality that allowed the referees to actually decide the game's outcome.
The rules are there for a reason. They should be enforced judiciously not frivously, and they should be enforced the same from beginning to end. If the call doesn't need to be made at game's end, it doesn't need to be made at its beginning or middle section, either.
If it DOES need to be made, it should be made right to the final second or out of the game.
Even if he is later to be proven wrong (the nightmare of nightmares), the umpire or referee should -- must -- have the courage to make the call as he sees and interprets it. Even if that calls turns the game from one final direction to another.
Be judicious. Be REALLY judicious. But have the guts to make the tough call -- even if it places your career in jeopardy.
Umpires and referees will miss PLENTY of calls, as hard as they work not to do so. But don't miss a call because you don't have the guts to make it.
Which brings up the old point: Should an umpire of a referee "decide" a game by making a call late in a game?
Particularly in the obstruction case, the umpire "decided" the game. Without his call of obstruction, the winning run would have been out at the plate.
Although it is an unpopular point of view, I have long made the case that an official decides the game only if he DOESN'T make the call because it is late in the game.
The popular belief is that late in a game the official shouldn't call something that doesn't HAVE to be called, since it might affect the game's outcome. Now THAT I agree with -- although I also believe he shouldn't call it at any other point of the game either.
Call the game the same way at the end as at the beginning as in the middle. Otherwise it is THEN that the game becomes unfair.
I was disappointed in my fellow basketball refs when we discussed a late-game play in a tournament game officiated by our association. A team went ahead with just seconds to go and then knocked the ball away so time would run off the clock and the go-ahead team could get its defense back. The vast majority of referees agreed that a technical foul shouldn't have been called in that instance.
While normally I would simply issue a warning in a similar situation, I felt strongly the technical should have been called, for two reasons.
First, the rule book says that a technical rather than a warning should be issued if the knocking the ball away is INTENTIONAL, which the officials agreed it was in this case.
Second, the offending team had ALREADY received an official warning for knocking the ball away earlier in the game. The rule book specifies that the second time the infraction occurs, a technical rather than another warning is to be issued.
If a technical isn't going to be called on the second infraction, what is the point of issuing he warning in the first place.
The "don't let the referees decide the game" mentality was at work here, but I think it was that very mentality that allowed the referees to actually decide the game's outcome.
The rules are there for a reason. They should be enforced judiciously not frivously, and they should be enforced the same from beginning to end. If the call doesn't need to be made at game's end, it doesn't need to be made at its beginning or middle section, either.
If it DOES need to be made, it should be made right to the final second or out of the game.
Even if he is later to be proven wrong (the nightmare of nightmares), the umpire or referee should -- must -- have the courage to make the call as he sees and interprets it. Even if that calls turns the game from one final direction to another.
Be judicious. Be REALLY judicious. But have the guts to make the tough call -- even if it places your career in jeopardy.
Umpires and referees will miss PLENTY of calls, as hard as they work not to do so. But don't miss a call because you don't have the guts to make it.
