As I understand it, from the article alone, the pinch-runner could have taken the earned base, but it would not have counted as a home run-merely a single. And there is some sort of cachet and memory to a home run. Maybe that's a league rule, I don't know. I do seem to recall that one can't argue the rules with an umpire.
I have a hard time with competitive sports, but I recognize that for those who participate in them, there's a lot of pressure to win. Especially when playoffs or elite contests are on the line. The entire team spends a lot of time working towards a common goal, and each player knows that the others are counting on her. This pressure sits uneasily with lectures about "sports(wo)manlike behaviour." All too often, empathy loses to the drive for victory.
Home runs, winning goals, 3-point shots, holes in one ... these are the fabric of the athlete's dreams, the stuff of myth, legend, fable, and poetry. Heroic feats. I don't share these dreams, but I recognize their fabric.
What I read, in the story, whether the umpire flubbed or not, is that the Central players understood how much that home run might mean to the player on the opposing team-in part because they're part of the baseball culture, and they too might want credit for such a feat. So they enabled her to have the outcome they would want for themselves.
One's team staff can always contest a ruling (if one is correct). There are rulebooks and such. Someone can be shown to be right. If there is doubt, I expect the ump's ruling would stand.
And I do like the message of empathy. I just was disappointed that it came out of an artificial crucible created by an umpire who didn't know the rules well enough. :(
I have a hard time with competitive sports, but I recognize that for those who participate in them, there's a lot of pressure to win. Especially when playoffs or elite contests are on the line. The entire team spends a lot of time working towards a common goal, and each player knows that the others are counting on her. This pressure sits uneasily with lectures about "sports(wo)manlike behaviour." All too often, empathy loses to the drive for victory.
Home runs, winning goals, 3-point shots, holes in one ... these are the fabric of the athlete's dreams, the stuff of myth, legend, fable, and poetry. Heroic feats. I don't share these dreams, but I recognize their fabric.
What I read, in the story, whether the umpire flubbed or not, is that the Central players understood how much that home run might mean to the player on the opposing team-in part because they're part of the baseball culture, and they too might want credit for such a feat. So they enabled her to have the outcome they would want for themselves.
Reply
There's a "Rule clarification" section on an ESPN posting on this story: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=3372631
One's team staff can always contest a ruling (if one is correct). There are rulebooks and such. Someone can be shown to be right. If there is doubt, I expect the ump's ruling would stand.
And I do like the message of empathy. I just was disappointed that it came out of an artificial crucible created by an umpire who didn't know the rules well enough. :(
Reply
Leave a comment