ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight
 

Must be a really slow news week. This burns me on so many levels...but I'll try to reserve judgement until after Tivo-ing it.

I predict that I will hear/see:

* Arguments that poor officiating is undermining the public's faith in sports
* Barry Mano, or other spokesperson, representing us well.
* "Mistakes are part of the game. Can't take the human element out."
* Nothing resolved...or learned.

Let's see if they run the officiating recruitment clip from last year or invite viewers to get involved....

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/popup?id=5277009

Why get upset? :confused:

The sun comes up in the east, goes down in the west....and officials occasionally screw up.

Obladi...obladah...life goes on.

The only real problem with that list is that the officials <b>didn"t</b> screw up on some of their examples:
1) In #10-the umpires made the correct ruling on Brett's homerun as per the rule book at that time. The American League president gave out a subsequent ruling that the rules didn't really back.
2) In #12, the R made the right call on Brady's fumble by the "tuck" rule as written. The problem was that it was a dumb rule and nobody really understood it.
3) In the 1972 Olympics, the problem again wasn't the officials. It was the way the TO rule was written and that the person who made the decision to have 2 do-overs was a bureaucrat in the stands, <b>not</b> an official on the court.

Yeah...you're right JR...should let this be such a big deal...sigh...of course you are correct in pointing out that three of the examples were not even incorrect calls.

What bugs me about this are the sensationalistic captions on the top ten "worst calls ever". These calls (and they are clearly mistakes) are more accurately the "most visible" or even "infamous" calls. The captions imply that these top officials -- who likely earned their assignments with stellar credentials and preformance-- are cavalier, uncaring and even inept.

If you really wanted to see the worst calls, just do a youtube search for "worst calls" and you'll find plenty of worthy candidates.

For Nightline to take this on as a "newsworthy" topic is stooping to the tabloid tv junk that poliferates the tube these days. Again, I'll withhold judgement about the show until I see it, but the subject of "examiing bad calls the latest technology to prevent them" seems to be an opportunisitc pile-on to the Donaghy scandal during a slow sports week.

Are they kidding? What a load of crap. I can easily think of 10 calls that were worst than these... I can even easily think of 10 calls I made that were worst than these (STFU JR). The only call that possibly belongs in this top 10 worst is the little Jeffrey Maier call. And how could they not look at any of the blown HR calls made this year alone? They must have some summer intern working on this one. An intern they imported in from some 3rd world country who doesn't know sh1t about US sports history.

But like all things this has a silver lining. From now on whenever a coach tells me I am the worst ever... I can smile, slowly shake my head & know that according to a world class news organization he is wrong.

"Coach, I didn't even make the Top Ten." :D

I think that the Competition Committee has even voted to keep the "tuck rule" exactly as it is, haven't they? For all the commotion it caused, they didn't even think the rule needed to be changed (I think).

BTW I agree with Dan that the Yankee/Baltimore homerun call belongs on the list, but I also think that Maradona goal does too. Denkinger simply missed a close play. These two weren't even close.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Nightlin...080630_ssh.jpg

I would vote for the Brett Hull "foot in the crease" being on the list. The officials didn't even go to replay to check it, and it was a Stanley Cup Final game. Inexcusable. And yes, I'm a Buffalo fan. We have so little to remember, but we will never forget the foot in the crease.

I don't agree because that was a stupid rule in the first place, which iirc had only been around for a year or so when that play happened. Also that rule is not the same today.

In any reasonable view, there was nothing wrong with that hockey goal.

Except the view of someone following the rules. It was the rule then, stupid or not, and they called it every time in the regular season. The guy could have his little toe in the crease and they called it no goal. In a Stanley Cup overtime game, you can't just abandon a rule you've been calling all year. His whole foot was in there. If I was from Dallas, I would be very happy, though.

Is this rule not unlike 3 seconds in the key? How would we view a game winning goal scored by a player who had one foot in the lane for 3 seconds before receiving a pass tha they turned around and scored as time expired?

I'm going to produce a show called "The Worst ABC News Story Mistakes Ever". I don't think I can limit it to only twelve, though.;)

I honestly don't know. But would we view it differently if we'd been calling 3 seconds on the play for the last 5 months, and then ignored it in a playoff series? Even when we had the ability to look at it on video?

:D

Since when do the officials judge how stupid or important rules are? I'm guessing you don't officiate hockey, but I've witnessed you and others here criticize basketball officials for ignoring rules that they think are stupid. Your analysis on hockey rules doesn't matter. This post is a little hypocritical imo.

And yeah... nothing wrong with the goal, except for breaking a rule. (Isn't the view I just took a reasonable one?).

Cha-CHING! We have a winner! :D

I'm merely a hockey fan, not a hockey official, but I do know that a successful hockey goal is a much rarer occurrence than a successful basketball shot. I don't see it at all like the 3-second rule. I think (I really have no clue) that the foot in the crease rule was put in to protect the goalies - keep players away, but again I really have no idea. The point is, they called it to an excruciating extent in the regular season - seriously, the slightest bit of skate in that blue area and they'd disallow the goal. Plus they have the luxury of replay to use. The fact that this particular goal was in the 3rd overtime (I think) of a critical Stanley Cup Final game magnified it to certainly belong in the top 10 botched calls of all time. For a Buffalo fan anyway. :)

None of those top "Dewey Beats Truman" however.

Actually, it was "Dewey Defeats Truman". I know that because that was the Chicago Tribune headline the morning I was born (not kidding) in Chicago. My mom used to have a stack of those but they got lost over the years. I think I read that one was recently donated to the National Archives.

And that's been the story of my life - Dewey Defeats Truman. :o

I'll acknowledge that you make a fine point. However, I'm not totally ignorant about hockey. Although I have never officiated the game, I did grow up playing it and got to a pretty high level in junior hockey. Let's just say that I was good enough that Kevin Constantine was my coach at one point.

I just think that the league was mistaken and that rule was ridiculous. I'm glad that the goal counted.

I would put the blame on the NHL bigwigs in the replay booth for being gutless. Sorta like calling a game one way for 31 minutes and calling your first hand check then. All season they had disallowed goals for that reason.

As a rules junkie, you are being incredibly hypocritical in agreeing with a very specific rule being ignored. You just lost a lot of credibility with me.

Thought I would chime in...

Frankly, it was a 3 OT Game 7, that means I'd been skating for at least 100 minutes. Hull scores, hell breaks loose, everybody is on the ice.

Here comes the cup!

But wait, that a-hole ref wants to review it! What! His toe was in the crease! That is rediculous!

Everyone off the ice, go put that Cup back on ice, we need to zamboni the ice because of all the crap that is out here now. Maybe get started in 20 minutes. Go pull the Sabres from the locker room. What? LaFontaine just left the building?

What ESPN? You need this game over because ratings are dwindling fast? Gary, what say you?

"Mr. Fraser, you shouldn't have reviewed the goal, we needed the game to be over in dramatic fashion".

-----------

Sometimes, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. No matter what, somebody is going to be pissed off. Notice how a proper enforcement of a rule (the Tuck Rule) made the list? because that is how people remember it - the a-hole ref. No matter if you get it right or get it wrong, even when it comes down to a RULE, not even judgement, it doesn't matter. You're wrong.

Didn't the Cards lose game 7 by about 50 runs anyway?

Sheesh. Get over it. If they had wiped it out, it only would have delayed the inevitable. Buffalo should be greatful they were even playing the Stars in a game 6 that year, and in OT to boot.

The way the NHL is officiated (i.e. by the seat of the pants), a 10th of a blade in a crease is not anywhere near the advantage some refs give teams by picking and choosing which physical play to penalize.

My only response to that is that the game was called a certain way and the rules were written a certain way for 70+ years, but it just so happened that for this brief time (a season or so) the NHL brass chose to mess with the rule. It didn't work out and this play shows why it was a poor idea. If this play had happened in any other season, no one would have any problem with the goal. What was done that year was counter to long standing hockey tradition and rules.

JMO.

They called it all year long and for infractions smaller than Hull's. Yes, they should have cleared the ice. All season long they disallowed goals. The rule was changed for the following season officially. But unofficially, it changed when they didn't have the guts to make the call from the booth.

The game was in Buffalo, so I doubt the crowd or anyone other than the Dallas Stars would have cared if they did the right thing and reviewed the play.

...and the rest of Canada. ;)