[Bfair]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

With McGwire's home run, it was obvious to 50,000 assembled fans and a television audience of millions that he missed the base. His body language and his coach's body language were both screaming, "Missed base!" Of course an umpire couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't overlook that.

But what if the missed base wasn't so obvious? What if the umpire felt he was one of only two or three people who even noticed it? If he calls it, what if replays are inconclusive? Then he becomes the umpire that has taken away McGwire's record-breaking dinger. It becomes a much foggier area then. And we'd all be talking about the umpire who thought he was bigger than the game by injected himself into a historic moment, wouldn't we?

An umpire has not "injected himself into a historic moment" by doing his job. He was put there for a reason before the game began. He's still there for a reason, but it's not to purposely upset history---it's to do the job he's been trained and paid to do.

Does that include his own judgment of applying the rules?
Absolutely. Experienced officials know that they don't call everything they see, however, they do allow advantage/disadvantage to play a role.

So, is there advantage/disadvantage on whether you uphold an appeal of whether a run scores or an out is declared? Most certainly so. Furthermore, when you purposely make a call you know is wrong knowingly providing an advantage to a team, YOU then become the cause.


Just my opinion,

Freix