Thursday, May 22, 2008

Umpire Respects Baseball Heritage, Makes Bad Call

In observation of one of baseball's greatest traditions, umpire Bob Davidson made a really bad call on Wednesday.

In a post-game interview, Davidson remembered the call, "Yeah...John tried calling it a homerun, which was a correct call and everything, but I just couldn't let it pass. I have traditions to uphold."

When asked why he decided to reverse the call, he quickly pointed out that this is a human game. "If we start getting everything correct all the time, fans will begin to think that this thing is rigged. Who wants to see a bunch of robots making the right call all the time?"

But why reverse the call after it was already made from the second base umpire? "John's been getting a little uppity lately," he tersely remarked, "and somebody really needed to put him in his place."

He's heard about all the instant-replay hubbub that has recently been bandied about, and he will have none of it. "Oh that's just great. I'll bet you want to have manager challenges, salary caps, and even divisions too, eh? Well the NFL tried that stuff, and look how far it got them."

Regardless, Davidson is really honored to continue the long-standing practice of making really bad calls. "I would've been even happier if it had changed the outcome of the game," a smile crept up on his face and the reflection of the players' and fans' rage twinkled in his eye, "but I'm glad I could be a part of this tradition."

"It's the way it's always been, you know?"


  1. I feel a little guilty, but I had to say something:

    You can find a snippy little response there. If I get any response at all, I'll post it here.

  2. ok, i had to post my response because i can't link you to that drivel and then expect you to still have enough brain cells left to get down to my comment.

    here it is:

    Clutch McGritterson says:

    May 24th, 2008 at 12:32 am

    All due respect, but this is fuggin stupid.

    First, you attempt to assert that baseball hasn’t evolved since its humble beginnings, unlike football. REALLY, BO? Even if that were remotely true (so many examples like pitching, pitch counts, uniforms, mlb structure, the DH, mound height, bat types, numerous uniform changes, game strategy, and most recently the adoption of a sabermetric approach), trying to use that as a reason that it should not evolve is completely bogus and comes off as pretty uniformed.

    Next, you try comparing baseball to football by saying that one would be recognized while the other wouldn’t. By suggesting this, are you saying that we suddenly wouldn’t recognize baseball if the calls were always right? When you repeat that to yourself does it sound as stupid to you as it does to me?

    Or are you trying to make the allusion that because the game has never evolved (it has), that it shouldn’t? (it will).

    And then you make the worst argument of all, that human error is a part of the game. I’m going to assume that you’re just spewing BS because you don’t really have an argument, or you’d recognize that nowhere in the MLB rulebook is “human error” recognized as any part of the game. In all seriousness, human error and his evil cousin human judgment are no more a part of the game than racism, doping, cheating, and gambling on your team.

    Of course, we all know that when we recognize a part of our game that can be improved (the color barrier and doping), we do what we can to improve upon that. I, nor should anybody else, let this small-minded and backwards thinking continue to hold our beloved sport back.

    I highly encourage readers (and the author) of this article to do some small amount of research, like wiki-frickin-pedia. In it you will find a wonderful history of a sport that has evolved with our culture, with our nation, and with our world.

    When the drunk slob sitting next to me at the bar can see the evidence on TV and make the correct call before clowns like Bob Davidson tries to make himself a star, we know we’re doing something wrong.

    Change this now, and stop writing ignorant trash like this.

    Thank you,

  3. Here's another opinion piece based on a bunch of superlative imaginings:

    There was nowhere to leave a comment. I really wanted to say something about his "breath-to-breath" prattling. :(

  4. Great article on the subject:

  5. So I had showed Gritty-Sister this column tonight, and what did she point out?

    "That guy in the first pic has some major hole-wedge going on there."

    I was unaware of exactly what hole-wedge was, but then she explained the difference between the more commonly known credit-card-wedgie and the lesser known hole-wedge.

    Thought you guys should know.