Upon Further Review, We Should All Be Robots

Really. Have we forgotten that we are all human? Nobody is perfect -- stop expecting everyone to be so.

I have spent several years of my life as an on-field official in a couple of sports. I've been baseball umpire. I've been a soccer linesman. And we all know that I currently exist in a legally-blind capacity as a hockey referee.

Do you want to know where I stand on instant replay?

Really. Ask me. Pretty please... ...with a cherry on top....

Instant replay is for the birds. It is possibly the worst idea in sports since Fox brought us the glowing puck on television. OK, I'll back down a bit. It is not a horrendous idea... but in most cases it is not used appropriately. In short, we need to not rely on it.

In every game, across every sport, there are objective people on the field to arbitrate and render decisions on those close calls. They are, outside of Tim Donaghy and his friends, for the most part impartial. Really, we people need to stop thinking that umpires or referees have it in for teams or players. It's not the case.

They are, however, human. And they are flawed -- everyone is. So how can I defend flawed people? Because the alternatives are no better. They too are flawed... ...because they are created by humans who are flawed.

This week, Major League Baseball (MLB) instituted their version of instant replay for use on what are being referred to as 'boundary calls'. They should really just say home runs, because that's the focus. MLB has installed cameras at all of their stadiums to help the umpires determine whether a batted ball left the field of play, if it was fair or foul, or if a fan interfered with a player making a play on the ball.

Why am I saying home runs? Because those are the only calls that an umpire might admit he needs help with -- if he admits it at all. An interference play on a foul ball, is not likely to go for review, because umpires generally do not have a problem getting into position to make calls on balls that end up closer to the infield. Those fan interference calls on foul balls are usually pop flies, and if an infielder or outfielder can cover the distance to the side boundary (I'm talking stands, not foul lines), so too can an umpire.

Home runs are slightly different, because the outfielders are much closer to the outfield wall than the umpires. This leads me to question why a simpler solution was not tried, first. That solution would be to used six-man crews (like those used in the playoffs) during regular season games.

Yes, I know, there was a six-man crew for the Jeffrey Maier incident. But most of those calls will have an umpire in position to make. You have two umpires down the lines in the outfield to make those calls.

Now, I don't know all the details of how this works -- especially because none of the outfield dimensions at any MLB ballpark consist of a straight wall from foul line to foul line. Which means that you would need multiple cameras for this to work to begin with.

Seriously, the only way for instant replay to work is for a camera to be at the top of each foul pole, shooting straight up -- to determine fair or foul -- and two cameras at every angle of the outfield wall -- one shooting to the right, and one to the left. That could get expensive for the Texas Rangers, in their park. And would have cost the Brooklyn Dodgers a metric ton of money at Ebbets Field, where the right field wall had no less than 289 angles.

Besides, as I mentioned before, the technology is not perfect. What if those cameras at the top of the foul pole twist to change the reference points? And really, what are your reference points when shooting at a clear blue sky? Besides, camera lenses get dirty, or simply don't give you a clear picture of what you're looking at.

I work on the CCTV crew at Rosenblatt Stadium in Omaha -- home of the College World Series. I can tell you that often plays are given a second look -- by us and umpires -- after games. The problem is, many times it's still inconclusive. No help there.

All MLB would need to do, is reposition the outfield umpires, to stand on the foul lines, near the wall. On a play towards the gap, they run out to make the call. On a blast down the line -- they hold their position and rule it fair or foul. If they back themselves to the wall, and look straight up -- they have the reference point of the foul pole and can tell you which side of the pole the ball left the park on.

But it does raise one question about a rule. Everybody knows that a ball inside the bases can roll foul or back into fair territory before getting to the bases. A ball that passes the bases on the fly must land between the foul lines to remain fair. But why is a ball which leaves the field of play over the outfield wall allowed to land outside the where the foul lines would be?

For example: You hit a ball that at travels 360 feet down the right field line. The ball never goes higher than 20 feet off the ground (a line drive). At 315 feet from home plate, the ball is inside the foul line. At 325 feet, the ball crosses the line. (This would mean that at 360 feet, the ball is also outside the line -- in simple physics.) At Yankee Stadium, you've just hit a home run. But if you're playing at Safeco Field it's strike one. However, if you're at Camden Yards, you're running as fast as you can because that ball is still in play, and the rightfielder is about to pick it up and throw it back in because it hit the scoreboard/wall.

(FYI: The above rule was changed in 1931. Prior that that, home runs were determined fair/foul at the point of which the umpire lost sight of them.)

But it does make you wonder -- that 360 foot home run... what if you hit it at Wrigley Field, and at 355 feet, the wind blew it back across the line. At 353 feet, the ball left the field of play... but if the wall was 365 feet away, it's in play.

It's a game of inches.

I'm sure someone is thinking that we should put cameras behind home plate, and shoot down the lines. That won't work. My seventh grade science teacher would like to teach you about parallax -- you know, it's how a speedometer reads 55 MPH to the dirver, but only 53 to the passenger. It's the same reason instant replay won't work on close calls at first base. You can't tell when the first baseman catches the ball.

There is a similar problem in football. There is no definite point of reference to determine when someone has possession of the ball. Timing and position do not translate well to video technology.

Now, it does have good uses in football. Like, when a player steps out of bounds. It also has a good use in hockey -- but only ONE. It is that view I like to call rafter cam -- the view straight down on the goal from the ceiling. But that view is often poorly executed. The shot needs to be 90 degrees from the horizontal, on a vertical plane directly above the goal line, at the middle of the goal. Often, that shot is at an angle -- and I can't tell you why, but it takes away any reference to the plane of the goal line, which means the system fails.

But, of the sports that I participate in, that rafter cam view is the only acceptable use of replay I see. Why? Because hockey moves fast, players move fast, referees move fast, and pucks move fast. On occaision, the referee will have a player between him and the puck -- and he simply can not see the puck entering the goal. Other times, the puck might hit a part of the frame in the back of the net. If you blinked, you missed it. That camera can see it, and tell you which part of the frame it hit. But that is it. None of this, was someone interfering? And don't use it to determine if the puck was played into the goal legally. Those are judgement calls, and should not be open for discussion. To one, it may be legal... to another, it's not.

See the play. Assess the play. Make the call.

In summary, cameras are not the answer -- because in the end, it still comes down to the human eye. Nothing takes the fun out of a game more than stopping to take a closer look at something nobody else has a better view of.

Let the officials make the call, move on, and remember... it's just a game.

File This One Under: Career Suicide

I've never been afraid to speak my mind. Some say I should keep my mouth shut. I disagree -- I can only be myself, and I am outspoken. It's shows strength, it shows resiliency, and it shows that I will not be intimidated by anyone or anything.

The following is my second response to Vent Casey's blog about Jericho Scott. Vent responded on his blog in agreement with my first reply, and then added that ESPN and their coverage of youth events like the Little League World Series are adding to the pressures that adults are putting on the next generation.

While it may cause me to be blackballed by possible employers because of a very anti-media (probably not a wise decision for a broadcaster) tone, I agreed:

You are dead on about ESPN. Heck, they make a big deal over spelling bees, hotdog eating contests, and meaningless card games.

But here is the big one against ESPN. College athletics schedules. College football belongs on Saturdays… and maybe Friday nights. But these mid-week (Tuesday and Thursday) games are ridonkulous. On a Tuesday night, these young adults need to be in their dorms studying. Heck, on Tuesday morning (not to mention Wednesday, and every other weekday) they need to be in the classroom… LEARNING.

And don’t even get me started on college basketball, because that is an exercise in futility on so many levels.

I really question whether scholarship athletes are actually students anymore. It also doesn’t help that we constantly hear of recruiting violations, late-night indiscretions, and other behavior that suggest they think they are above anyone else.

I think they forget on major aspect of the life they live. Yes, God has given them this talent to do something better than anyone else — BUT that talent has opened the door for them to improve themselves, not in athletics, but in intangibles.

Fact is, many of the people we see on the gridiron, or on the hardwood are not typical college material. I gander many of them struggled just to meet academic requirements.

That is not to say that there aren’t some very intelligent athletes in the university system. However, the ones who make the headlines for what they do off the field are making those headlines because they have made a conscious effort to not be getting the education that their talents have earned them. They feel as if it is a privilege to play college sports. That’s only a partial truth. The other have of the equation is that it’s a privilege to have an education all but handed to you because of your talents in other areas.

Now, I will admit that I am a little biased towards college hockey. Part of it is that I love hockey, and the other part is that I was a college hockey player, so I know the system.

To start, you don’t hear much about the indiscretions of college hockey players, because there are fewer college hockey programs in the nation than most other major sports. At the same time, college hockey is not a monopoly, like football and basketball are. College hockey has stiff competition from the major junior ranks, which provide another in-road to a professional sports career. A player with professional aspirations is more likely to go play major junior, than to go to college. College hockey players want to be in school, and want an education.

In all fairness, college baseball would be a similar situation, as players are often drafted out of high school and proceed directly to the professional ranks.

But where college hockey traditionally blows the other sports out of the water in academic friendliness that that college hockey teams generally play Friday-Saturday games every week. In most of the rare occurrences that you do have a mid-week game, it is often a local rivalry that do not require the players to be off campus for more than a couple hours. It is generally not disruptive to the learning environment.

Of course, ESPN shows maybe 5 college hockey games all year. OK, ESPN-U usually has a game a week… but still — you see more high school basketball games on ESPN than you do college (or even professional) hockey. And that is a major issue, very closely related to what started this conversation.

Now, I was a walk-on. Nothing was handed to me, except a seat on the bench. It was very easy for me to talk to my coaches and tell them that academics came first to me. In fact, in my once semester as a D-1 hockey player, I was excused to be late to Tuesday and Thursday practices because I had a class that ran up to the start of ice time. But, I wasn’t the only one.

Myles Brand and the NCAA need to get out of the money-making business. Yes, college sports do bring in financial assistance that normally wouldn’t exist. But, not enough of it is going to the schools. Most of it remains within the athletic programs. If the NCAA is truly interested in the academic side of the athletes, they need to grow a pair.

Instead of wasting time telling schools like Illinois and North Dakota that they need to change their mascots, they need to take on the image crisis they have from crawling into bed with ESPN. For all intents and purposes, Myles Brand is a prostitute — he sold himself, and the NCAA, for money instead of moral decency.

The NCAA needs to put their foot down. Tell ESPN that their broadcast schedule is secondary to the academic schedules of the 300,000 athletes in affiliated instiutions of higher learning. It’s a simple fix. Friday and Saturday nights are college sports night (volleyball, basketball, football, hockey, lacrosse, lawn darts, baseball, softball, kickball, dodgeball, soccer, etc.). Sunday is NFL, Monday Night is Monday Night (yes, I meant to say that)… and the rest of the week there are plenty of PROFESSIONAL sports to air, filling the schedule: NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS, CFL, WNBA, heck — minor league game of the week.

You know, mix it up — when was the last time professional volleyball players (and I’m not talking beach volleyball) were heard of outside of the Olympics? How about putting them in the spotlight more often?

And finally, to bring us back Jericho Scott, and the pressure being forced upon the youths of this nation. I take pride in how I became a college athlete. Some know my story, others don’t. Long and short of it — I played on one select team… my senior year of hockey, the local association put together a house league all-star team. We played a whole nine game schedule. My parents never pushed me to do something I didn’t want to do. I didn’t sacrifice my social life, or my parents finances to further my career, and my parents never had to play the politics that are so often prevalent. And yet, somehow, I can say that I was a Division-1 student-athlete in college.

…and I don’t care that I never played a minute during my D-1 career.

Coming Full Circle (As In Circle-Change)

For those of you who know the history of this blog, you know that it started because of the responses I was making on other people's blogs. Bloggers were encouraging me to start blogging myself, and I took them up on it. If you have read some of those responses, you'll see that some of them are doozies, and really worthy of blog posts on their own.

It is with that in mind -- with respect also towards time, the relaunch of this blog, and the friendships it has created -- that I will begin to repost my responses to the blogs that I frequent.

I encourage all of you to visit their blogs, read them, and please be respectful of the opinions posted there (theirs, mine, and anyone elses).

I am not going back in time to dig up these responses. They will be posted shortly after they are made public on the blogs of origin. And of course, this does not mean that I will no longer be original and come up with content of my own... just that I have found that often blog-worthy content doesn't end up on my own blog. Now, it's here.

The original blog post was made by Vent Casey, on his blog, here.

This who situation just exemplifies what is wrong with America, what is wrong with this generation of adults, and what is soon to be wrong with the next generation.

I almost don't know where to start -- and you have done a wonderful job of pointing out all that is wrong, and you have much more detail than I would have. But let's just start at the very beginning...

IT'S JUST A GAME.

I'm not sure where it started, and I'm not about to point fingers, but it is a multi-generational problem. We are taking game -- specifically youth games -- way too seriously. Somewhere we got it in our minds that we have to have a winner every time out, and that losing is bad.

For shame. (And for this one I will point to professional sports with the blame.) For some mind-blowing reason, the professional ranks are trying to do away with ties. OK, baseball has never had ties. Football (at least the NFL) still does have ties, but you get one maybe once every five years -- yet, college football has done away with ties. Basketball, as far as I can remember has never had ties... but they are the biggest source of the problem -- high-scoring games with no ties... of course, high-scoring makes it easy to break ties, so there really isn't a need for ties in basketball. Soccer, low scoring... but still has ties... and the only gripe is that there is no scoring in soccer.

Oh well, deal with it.

Hockey, for some reason (and I point to former NBA #2 and all-around idiot Gary Bettman as the villain) has decided that they want the NBA mentality, not what soccer has. Bettman wants more scoring (and I'll agree, scoring is down in hockey) and no ties. They've adopted shootouts. It's crap. Bettman has taken the most exciting play in hockey, and bastardized it for the sake of determining a winner (he's also mandated for penalty shots during games, in an absent-minded attempt to create more scoring).

FACT: Some days nobody deserves to lose. Some days nobody deserves to win. Some days the teams are just evenly matched.

The adults need to realize this, and the kids need to know it. No shame in a tie. No shame in losing, either. What's important in youth sports? Development. Losing seems to get the message across that there is room for improvement. Winning does not have the same effect... but... really, despite winning, there is always room for improvement.

Some of us had fathers who pushed us to do better, despite winning: "Congrats on throwing a shutout... but next time go for a no-hitter." Read between the lines on that one. Dad's not saying you suck. Dad is trying to keep things in perspective. He's saying there is always room for improvement. It's not being cut-throat. It's simply stating fact.

FACT: You can throw a no-hitter, and still lose. You can also shutout your opponent, and still not win.

Which brings me to point number two. I completely agree that this child should not be pushed ahead. This is a good time to teach your kids patience.

First, let's not stunt Jericho's growth (mentally or physically). Keep him with kid's his age. And don't let his talent give him a benefit that will go straight to his head. Athletes do not deserve special benefits (and, yes, I am a former athlete). Further, moving him up would also force him to to try harder to keep up, or possibly put him back in his place, and maybe discourage him. It could go either way.

Which brings me to secondly... let's allow Jericho's talent to help those around him. To start, don't give up because of a challenge in front of you. So Jericho strikes out your kid. OK, your kid needs to come back and try again.

Let my put it this way. I have a brother who is four years older than me. He used to kick my butt every day in baseball, or football, or soccer. Naturally, he was bigger and better than I was. But I kept at it. I didn't quit. Personally, I think I got better because of the competition I faced. It's small fish, big pond / big fish, small pond.

These kids who face Jericho now are eventually going to get better because of him -- making adjustments, or just catching up with him physically. By letting them play together, New Haven could be looking at a state championship baseball team, who not only outscored everyone by five or six runs per game, but were led by an outstanding pitcher.

Eventually, he will get pushed to a new level. When he gets to high school, he could inevitably skip freshman ball, and go straight to JV or even varsity. That would be an appropriate time to push his talents.

Finally, stop playing politics. Who cares who wins? It's just a game. There is no money at stake. Let the kids be kids, let them have fun, and stop putting pressure on them. This is just another example of adults taking the fun away from the kids.

Sure, there is a sense of pride for Carlito's Barber Shop. But it is misplaced pride. The pride should not be in sponsoring championship teams. The pride should be in providing an opportunity for these children to play baseball, to have fun, and to grow. Again, no money at stake -- you're not going to win a huge payday because you sponsor a great team. (Of course, I wouldn't put it past these people to be betting on youth baseball.) Really, it's local baseball, and your market is anyone at the ballpark. Nobody is going to say: "well, I was going to go get my haircut at Carlito's, but his baseball team played poorly, so I'm going to Great Clips."

What you want is: "I need a haircut. You know what, Carlito's sponsors a team in the youth league. They're not very good, but at least his money goes to a great cause... I think I'll patronize him, and maybe the money from my haircut will help the next Bob Gibson chase his dream."

Does It Really Take A Government Conspiracy To Draw Me Out?

It's been a while. I'm sure anyone with enough time on their hands to care that I shut the heck up, are now saying, "oh, bloody hell, he's back.... [We] thought we won."

You can never silence me. Only I can silence myself, and I just don't have that kind of self-control.

Yeah, I know -- shock, horror.

In all honesty, sometimes there is just not enough time in the day to enjoy ranting and raving. Besides, most of it I can do in person, and that can be rewarding when you see the eyes rolling in the room.

But with the Olympics half a world away, my sleep schedule is a mess... OK, it was a mess before that, but at least I have an excuse now. So while I have some sleepless hours, why not just burst back onto the scene with the internet equivalent of blowing a load.

Wait scratch that reference, I'm not a pedophile or someone releasing sexual frustration by way of the internet... that's just wrong.

Let's just say, I haven't forgotten about all of you -- over the last seven months. I'm still here, still as opinionated as ever, and ready to fire.

Olympic Gymnasts: With that in mind, let's just roll with that last reference -- the Olympics, not the issue of sexual entertainment (though, maybe I'll talk about Gary Glitter, later).

The big story, aside from swim-freak Michael Phelps, coming out of the Beijing Olympics seems to surround the Chinese Women's Gymnastics Team, and just how old they really are. China claims they are all 16 years old-- the minimum age for eligibility. The media, including Chinese media, are report that some of them may not be.

Who are you going to believe? Maybe I'm just being an American... but I sure as hell don't believe China. It's not secret that the Gymnastics program in China is government-run, much to the same effect as the Central Red Army in the Soviet Union (and their allegedly amateur athletes).

Sure, they've provided documents to verify the alleged ages. But it's not hard for the government to doctor these documents, they are state-issued after all. Seriously, the U.S. Government could issue me a passport saying that I am Shawn Johnson of West Des Moines, Iowa. (Though, I doubt it would say I'm 16.)

What will be key, are the web documents (which have joined the ranks of the signed confessions of the 1919 Chicago White Sox) found by the Associated Press. More important will be secondary documents -- something like official rosters (or programs) from previous competitions. Just think, all of these gymnasts have probably competed in World Championships, or World Junior Championships before. This won't be rocket science -- find the official rosters from those competitions going back several years and look at the birth dates provided on those rosters. Any discrepancy, and the secret is out.

It's not far-fetched. A member of China's 2000 Olympic team admitted to be only 14 years old during the Sydney Games. The International Federation of Gymnastics banned North Korea in the 1990s when it was discovered that a gymnast was listed as 15 years old for three consecutive years. I've heard of women not wanting to turn 30... but that's just wrong.

Somewhere someone is saying, "who gives a crap, so we got beat by a bunch of 12 year olds... that's even more embarrassing."

No, it's not. The rules are rules, and they are the rules because they are in the best interest of everyone involved. The demands on the human body in gymnastics are extreme. Think of it this way -- would you teach an 8 year old baseball player to throw a curveball? No, because the body is not ready for that strain at that age.

This is the simplest argument for the age restriction, though there are others -- including mental health.

But, before I leave you for the evening, I want to leave you with a little bit of humor. In the AP story reprinted on both ESPN.com and TSN.ca -- the final line was a quote attributed to the Chinese coach: "It's not just me. The parents of our athletes are all very indignant," Lu said. "They have faced groundless suspicion. Why aren't they believed? Why are their children suspected? Their parents are very angry."

There are two ways to call bully on that quote. I'll let you choose.

1. B.S. -- The gymnasts are taken from their families at young ages to be entered into this government program (much like the Romanians used to). They are, for all intents and purposes, orphans. (Or upset about losing their children eight years ago.)

Or 2. B.S. -- The parents are upset, but only because their status and higher-class lifestyles are now in jeopardy if their children are running the risk of not being a part of the national team.

I really hope this one gets settled soon. Let's not drag this out like Floyd Landis' Tour de France victory disqualification... or even the results of the 2000 Sydney Games, where some results are still pending. Get the answers, render the verdict, and move on.