|
So here we are in the NFL with 2 seconds left in the game and the offense trailing by 5 with the ball at the 15 yard line. Wideout is split wide left with the defender ready to block his release off the line.
The snap occurs, the defensive line stunts, and the offense makes a quick trap off the right guard with the runner breaking toward the right sideline and scoring to win the game.
But wait, there's a flag on the play !!!!!!!!
It seems there was a holding call made against the wideout over on near the left sideline !!!!!
Good call by rules?????????????
Good call by a veteran official?????????
You make the call............
********
It seems we have a similar incident here..........
While Yeast may have emphasized the need for officials to assure pitchers come to a complete stop, I doubt if he wanted his directive to mean situations where no advantage could be gained (such as perhaps a pitcher throwing from the set position with no runners on base). But will Yeast support this call? Of course he will. The official was carrying out HIS emphasis---despite applying it poorly for the situation at hand. Still, I'd strongly suspect that Yeast cringed when he saw the call.............as likely did most veteran officials. That's probably why only 1 of 4 officials made the call and not because of their angle on the play. Let's face it, PU and U2 also have excellent angles on this action and would have easily seen it.
There are exceptions to the rules---unwritten exceptions that we at times apply. Better officials know WHEN to apply those exceptions, know how to take the heat if necessary, and know how to explain their way out of 'em. Those exceptions typically apply toward technical infractions where neither advantage was gained nor attempted to be gained. The other factor includes how obvious the infraction is. Does this fit the category?
While I did not see this play to be able to comment on how OBVIOUS the infraction was (the problem faced with the dropped ball from the rubber), this is still an infraction of judgement. It should not have been called unless the official felt that R3 might have been contemplating a steal of home. It's likely no advantage was gained or attemted to be gained.
The official let the technicality of the rules become greater than the game itself.
***********
The George Brett incident is one where McClelland was forced to check the bat after the infraction of having the pine tar too far up the handle BECAUSE it was brought to his attention. The situation was at that point made obvious such that he felt forced to make the technical decision per the rules. He ruled accordingly and declared Brett out for use of an illegal bat. A call he didn't want to make, but one he felt forced to make by the rules.
KC protested the game. The outcome of the protest was ruled in favor of KC despite obviously not being in accordance with the technical rule. The ruling (I believe made by Lee McPhail) cited that although the umpire ruled in accordance with the written rule, he did not rule within the spirit and intent of the rule.
*********
AS umpires we need to consider spirit and intent of the rules---especially when we can use "judgment" as an easy explanation vs. enforcing a technical rule (something McClelland would have had difficulty doing).
I'm amazed at some of the veteran officials who have been criticizing Pete.
I'd speculate that none of these officials (whose posts I've read in the past) would have supported this same call 2 years ago when I was last on the boards. Not due to lack of gonads, but moreso due to being better umpires. So, would the Yeast edict of emphasis be the difference today? While it may be for those veterans posting here, I suspect it was for only 25% of the umpiring crew of the game being discussed. Still, I suspect some of those posting in support of the call made would still not make that call today. I'd put 'em in the 75% that didn't make the call on the field. Explaining a call like this and making a call like this are different animals.
********
IMO, don't let the technicalities of the rules become greater than the game itself.
Understand advantage, disadvantage, and intentional attempts to take advantage illegally.
I guess it's obvious I would not have made that call......
Perhaps for that reason among many more is why I'm sitting at home talking about it rather than being on that field deciding it. The official earned his way there, but I doubt if this will be seen as a feather in his cap. Even the best officials can, at times, make poor calls.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|