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

[pizanno]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Why get upset?

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 didn"t 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, not an official on the court.

[pizanno]

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.

[Dan_ref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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).

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Smitty]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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?

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?).