Field rulings better left to human judgment
By Aaron Juarez
Yay Curt Schilling! Every time the Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher expresses himself, my respect for him rises exponentially.
Whether shredding Bud Selig's performance as commissioner of Major League Baseball or giving his blunt and honest opinions on the steroid issue, Schilling refuses to back down from his beliefs.
Schilling's most recent expression, however, interested me not only with its utter defiance but with its relevance to the entire sports world.
During Saturday's loss to the San Diego Padres, Schilling became so enraged over the balls-and-strikes calls of his pitches that he went ìRage Against the Machineî on the QuesTec camera set up near the Diamondbacks' dugout at Bank One Ballpark. HAL didn't stand a chance this time.
The QuesTec Umpire Evaluation System, which is in use at 13 major league parks, electronically evaluates every ball and strike called by the umpire in an attempt to monitor the enforcement of the strike zone. Many umpires feel that their ability to call the game is affected by this machine because borderline pitches, which they may call strikes, are considered balls by the machine. By calling these borderline pitches strikes, an umpire would be subject to a lower evaluation of his performance. Thus, umpires are then forced to makes calls based on a machine's projections instead of their own determinations. The umpire's union has in fact already filed a grievance against teams using the system based on its inaccuracies and negative effects on an umpire's job performance.
After considering Schilling's demonstrative opinion, I think we need to open our eyes to the negative phases of these sorts of ìevaluatingî technologies in sports.
Let's focus on the most recognizable instant replay system in sports: the NFL ìchallengeî system. In this system, teams are granted two challenges per game. If a referee makes a questionable call, the head coach may either ìbuzzî the official or throw a red flag onto the field to indicate that they should look over the play on a sideline monitor. Upon review, the official may then allow the call to stand, or overturn it based on the NFL rulebook.
On top of this, during the last two minutes of each half, challenges are no longer made by the coaches but by officials sitting in an officiating booth overlooking the field. They may arbitrarily decide to challenge any call. The decision is entirely theirs.
Call me old-fashioned, but why can't we just leave the game to the officials to call? Human error happens, that's a fact of life. When you have coaches or people in a booth being able to second-guess officials, it only makes the referees more tentative and less likely to make the right call. When a running back is being brought down and the ball comes loose, do you wonder why it takes so long to make the call? Because the official knows that no matter what he calls, a red flag will be flying from one of the sidelines.
The NFL needs to go back to the days when instant replay was nonexistent. Let the officials have the luxury of making a call without Big Brother looking over their shoulder and I would be a lot more comfortable knowing that an official is 100 percent sure of what he is calling.
Unless we want the machines and third parties taking control of this game, someone has to take a stand. Curt Schilling had the right idea when he recreated a scene from ìOffice Spaceî with that QuesTec camera. After reviewing that play, my ruling stands.