I'm glad it wasn't me...

By now everyone who follows even the slightest amount of baseball knows about the call that Jim Joyce missed on June 2nd that cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game.

Having umpired for 26 years, I've had many of my friends ask me in the last 36 hours about the call and what can be done to (a) fix the missed call and (b) make sure it doesn't happen again. I've read countless blogs and posts and listened to several respected national sports commentators give their opinions, most of which lean towards reversing the call and awarding Galarraga his perfect game.

From a purely statistical perspective, it makes sense and would certainly "feel good" to reverse the call. After all, it would not change the outcome of the game and it would right what was clearly a botched call. At first, I thought that was the best way to handle the situation, but I now have changed my mind and believe the changing the call would do more harm than good.

I know, those of you who want the call changed are screaming, "How can changing it be bad?!?" Well, the answer is simple. It's because changing the call would undermine the integrity shown in the past 36 hours by Joyce, Galarraga and the Tigers organization. Jim Joyce could have easily issued a statement saying that he either stood by his call, or that he realized he missed it, but that it's part of the game. But he didn't. He stood up like a man, admitted his mistake, sought out Galarraga and apologized to him with great humility and then apologized basically to the rest of the baseball world (which includes the casual fan like you and me, by the way). Galarraga accepted the apology and neither he nor the Tigers are going to ask for the call to be reversed. Umpires miss calls. I've done it, and trust me, nobody feels worse than the umpire when you know you've blown a call that you can't change. I'm just thankful I never blew a call in such a big situation.

If the call is changed, then I feel that it cheapens the moment we have witnessed over the past two days. We have always known that there is a human element in sports officiating, and until players and management in those sports allow technology to remove some of that human element, mistakes will be made. If MLB wants to change their replay policy as a result of this call, then so be it. I'll be their biggest proponent, if they do it correctly. But not this call. Let's face it: changing this call would make us all feel good, nothing more. If this call had been blown in the fifth or sixth inning, there would not be nearly the same outcry about having it overturned. Why not? Is the 15th or 18th out any less important than the 27th out in a perfect game? Of course not.

If you change this call, which had no bearing on the outcome of the game, why not go back and change calls that DID affect the outcome of the game? Anyone care to guess how many people in Cardinal Nation would scream bloody murder if this call was changed, but the Dinkinger call in the '85 World Series was allowed to stand? After all, that call only changed the WINNER of the World Series, not just an individual accomplishment. So I say, let this call stand. It will make Joyce, already a very, very good umpire even better. It reminds us that everyone is human, and that forgiveness is easiest when one admits their mistakes and accepts the consequences.

Now let's talk about how to fix this moving forward. The technology certainly exists to allow the reversal of calls that are obviously wrong. The issue is how to do so without affecting the integrity of the game. My personal opinion is that replay could be used in one of two ways for calls other than balls and strikes challenges.

One way would be to give each manager one or two challenges per game for a play at a base or maybe a catch/no catch situation. The umpires would then follow the same procedures they currently use for instant replay. But if you used this method, how would you "penalize" the manager if he's wrong? In the NFL, the team loses a timeout if their challenge is unsuccessful. What similar penalty could you impose in MLB? If you charged an out (for a failed challenge by the offense) or put a runner on base (for the defense), you have potentially changed the integrity of the game. Some (me included) have advocated letting the opposing team choose a bench player to be scratched for the rest of the game after a failed challenge. But that could be very bad too. Could you imagine the Yankees losing a challenge and then having the Red Sox scratch Mariano Rivera in the 8th inning of game 7 of the ALCS?

Maybe a better way is to have a replay official in the press box similar to how college football handles reviews. Let the replay official take a look, then signal the crew chief if a further review is warranted. Many of you will find this hard to believe, but for the vast majority of games, replay would never be used. MLB umpires make very few mistakes, save balls and strikes. Forget about the "neighborhood" force out play at second base; that will always be called that way, and while that is a blog for another day, the primary reason is safety. As I was taught in many umpiring schools, "if he's gonna be out, he's gonna be out."

One other key component in any proposed replay change will be the stance of the players. Note that you haven't heard an outcry from the players about adding replay as a result of this call. In fact, the vast majority of players have said that the human element is part of the game. The players union would have to approve any change, and they are about as immovable as the US Government. The strike zone is the perfect example. The rule book definition of a strike and what is called in MLB are two completely separate things. But you don't hear the players complaining about the current strike zone as it is called. So why doesn't MLB change the rule book definition to match what is currently being called? The players union. Plain and simple.

The bottom line is that I hope that replay will be expanded to allow blatently missed calls to be changed, as long as a method that doesn't change the integrity of the game can be found. But the call made by Jim Joyce needs to stand.

Roll Tide and Assorted Other Notes from the Title Game

I knew the moment that Longhorns QB Colt McCoy left the game with an injury that UT fans across the country would want to place an asterisk next to this game should Alabama end up victorious. I didn't, however, think it would happen during the game.

A quick check of the Facebook pages of some of my Longhorn friends this morning had the usual whining by the losing team's fans about bad coaching decisions, Bama running up the score, and the expected laments that the outcome would have been different if McCoy had played the entire game. What surprised me was when I realized that many of these comments were posted long before the outcome of the game was over.

I honestly thought going into the game that the true title game had been played in the SEC Championship, and that UT would not last more than a half against an Alabama defense that embarassed Florida in December. At halftime last night, it looked like I was right. Then UT took advantage of some uncharacteristly conservative play calling by Bama and mounted a great comeback. For a while I thought I'd have a lot of crow to eat this morning, but then the first sack of the night by the Tide defense forced a fumble that effectively sealed the game.

Longhorn fans can lament all they want that the outcome would have been different with Colt at QB, but I beg to differ for two reasons. First, the aforementioned sack would have forced a fumble even if (insert legendary QB of your choice here) had taken that snap. Second, Alabama's defensive game plan likely used the tendencies they had seen in video of Colt McCoy not those of Garrett Gilbert. That's not to say that Gilbert fooled the Tide defense, per se, it's just to indicate that the Tide's McCoy-to-Gilbert videotape ratio was probably in the 10:1 range. Little-used players off of the bench can often wreak havoc on a defense that prepared for the other team's star. This was no different.

I'd also venture that the Tide defense also subconsciously relaxed a little after McCoy left as well. That would be a natural tendency of almost any competitor. But for those who still think that McCoy would have made the difference, look no further than the Longhorn's opening possession. After a fake punt that gave the Horns not only incredible field position but a chance to make a statement in the opening minutes of the game, they had to settle for a field goal. Points yes, but a moral victory for the Tide defense. Then the Horns had another chance after the mental lapse on the ensuing kickoff by the Tide special teams unit. Again, another field goal, albeit McCoy was out of the equation by this point.

Injuries are part of the game. Should we put an asterisk next to the Texas win against Oklahoma after Sam Bradford went out? Sooner fans would probably say yes, but I'll bet my life savings that Longhorn fans would claim that "Texas would have won with Bradford playing." Sound familiar?

What Longhorn fans should really be upset about is the absolutely asinine question that ABC's Lisa Salters asked Colt McCoy about 5 nanoseconds after his team had lost its national championship bid. You can hear the entire interview at http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/colt-mccoy-national-championship-postgame-interview/4259931995, but for the sake of this blog, here is the question that almost made me throw a damaging object through my TV last night.

"What was it like for you to watch this game, your last game in a Longhorn uniform, from the sidelines?"

While this question might be appropriate in the post game news conference, it has no business being asked right after the game. The only reason to ask that question with that phrasing is if you are trying to elicit an emotional response. It almost worked. Colt clearly choked back tears, then just as clearly suppressed the response that I wanted him to give, then answered Lisa with grace and dignity. A response for the ages.

In case you're wondering, my response would have been, "I don't know, Lisa. I guess I felt the same way that Dale, Jr. felt when he helplessly watched his father die during the Daytona 500. Or maybe the same way that Jackie Kennedy felt when JFK was shot while she sat helplessly next to him."

Of course, he could have replied, "Well, Lisa. It felt great. Even though Alabama was favored to win, since I left the game so early they're not really the national champions. Clearly this win will be forever tainted and Bama fans will never truly savor this win because they know Texas would have won if I had not been injured."

But what I'd really like one ballsy athlete to say one day is, "How would you feel, Lisa, if you had the chance to win an ESPY for sideline reporting, but lost it to Erin Andrews because you were having a bad hair day and got replaced for this game?"

A much better question, in my opinion, would have been, "Colt, once you realized you were not going to be able to return to the game, what did you do from the sidelines to try to help your teammates, especially Gilbert, maintain their poise and focus?"

The bottom line is that in a world where so many of the TV sideline reporters are nothing more than people who aren't good enough to be the game's color analyst, it's no wonder why coaches and players are wary of talking to the media. Players the world over should watch this interview to see exactly how to handle an idiotic question. And sports executives should watch the same interview and fire anyone who asks such a question. Those same sports executives should watch my friend Whit Watson for examples of exemplary sideline reporting.

I'm not saying tough questions are off limits. But questions that have no relevance to the game that just ended should be saved for the locker room or the interview room.

Longhorn fans have no reason to try to place an asterisk on this game. You fought well, but lost to a superior team. Alabama fans have no reason to apologize for this win. ABC, on the other hand, should just be ashamed of itself. And just think, we get to watch ABC/ESPN botch BCS coverage for the next four years.

I can hardly wait.