Which Would Be More Controversial?

Submitted by Bolton22 on

A blown call that costs a team The World Cup, or Jim Joyce's call that cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game?

Steweiler

June 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^

watch people neg-bang you for a blatant misspelling.  Pretend I'm not here.

(OK.  A blown call that costs a championship would be WAAAY more contrOversial)

david from wyoming

June 23rd, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^

Jim Joyce made a mistake and apologized. He is a great ump and a great human. Enough already.

hockeyguy9125

June 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^

Its simple really...no matter how much of a screw job it did to Galarraga individually, it did not cost the team anything in (spare me the Game 163 references) a relatively meaningless game.

A blown call that costs a team (and nation) in the world tournament is much worse than any individual performance, no matter how stunning that individual performance is.

jg2112

June 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^

The OP is operating under the assumption that the United States will go on to win the World Cup absent that "non-goal" call.

That's one heck of an assumption.

maizenbluenc

June 23rd, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^

My view is similar to those above. Other than a record book entry for Galarraga, the impact of the Joyce call is contained. The team still won the game. The win is only a series of wins and losses that impact the team's ability to progress in the post season.

If the US does not progress in the World Cup (with a tie or loss), then the blown call in that case definitely impacted the teams ability to progress in a championship tournament.

I am not saying the US would have won the World Cup if the goal had been allowed. I am saying the blown call may have eliminated the chance for them to progress to the next round and potentially progress onward to win the World Cup. Just eliminating them from progressing on a blown call is a sporting tragedy.