I Doth Protest: Trying To Sort Today's Debacle Between The Phillies And The Marlins

In a season where Wilson Valdez played 18 innings in the infield, pitched the 19th, and became the winning pitcher after starting in the field for the first time since Babe Ruth, incredibly, that is no longer the strangest Phillies game of the season. That honor now belongs to today's Phillies-Marlins game which ended on a walkoff walk. Though it was not the 3rd walkoff walk of the 2011 season that made it bizarre and strange, but rather the 6th inning where Hunter Pence hit a deep fly ball to right that was initially called a double before being reviewed and (rightly) determining that there was fan interference on the play. Now whether or not Bryan Petersen would have actually made that catch is certainly suspect at best. It looked like his glove was closing as the ball was the falling down and it would ultimately bounce away from him, however, that is not for sure. What is known is a fan definitively reached over the wall and made sure Petersen had no chance of making what may have been one of the great plays of the day. That is certain.

Now if only it were that simple. Where the controversy occurs is how the umpires went about today's festivities.

That the exact written rules for instant replay are not available online do not make things easier in judging if Joe West acted properly or not. This is what we know. Instant replay is used for reviewing home runs. This was ruled a double turned to an out based on fan interference. A home run does not factor into that at all, although if the umps wanted to review to see if it was home run, then they can make the call that they made today.

Joe West said Charlie Manuel requested a review. Charlie Manuel said he did not request a review. The rules say a manager does not need to make a request for there to be a review. Judging from the video that it never appears Charlie Manuel approaches the umpires asking for a review certainly does not lend credit to Joe West's case. Jack McKeon, on the other hand, does appear engaged with the officials. It is highly doubtful he would be requesting the umpires see if that play should result in two runs for the other team.

Joe West would go on to say, "We’ve got a decision as to whether the spectator inference happened over the fence or before the fence."

The question here is about the process, not about the results of that process. It certainly appears that at the very best there was a stretching of the rules to get where they got to, and if not, then a lot of lying on the part of Joe West after the game. Whether or not they got the call right, I believe they did, but at the same time, it is a stretch to say that the Bryan Petersen making that catch is a given. According to Rule 3.16, "If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out." It is unknown if the catch would have been made, but that fan reached over the wall and clearly prevented denied him that chance. But were the umps allowed to review it?

That's the question MLB will be asking when they rule whether or not to uphold the Phillies' official protest of the game. So much has been said, and the instant replay rules are not readily available online preventing me from definitively for sure, but given Joe West's comments, it certainly appears suspect. It's been 25 years since a protest has last been upheld. Regardless of it MLB should uphold the protest, it certainly would be shocking if they did based alone on their dealing with the umpires and historical precedence.

Jim Joyce Feels Better About Himself Tonight

I already said enough on this in the live blog, so I won't re-iterate everything again, but in case you missed it, here is the controversial ending of today's Rutgers-St. John's game.



First of all, there is no doubt the refs erred here, but unfortunately, the Big East was correct in their statement. Once the refs let play continue, it is unreviewable because in order to have a review, you need to have a call, and there was no call. Even though it defies logic (and common sense), what the Big East said was right.

Secondly, and I have made constant fun of this announce team on the live blogs, but they were right on top of things. Pasch recognized it right away, as did Fraschilla and Doris Burke, so kudos to them there.

Unfortunately, Rutgers is not an NCAA Tournament team and this is how their season will end. Their last game of the 2010-2011 season will forever have 1.7 unplayed seconds left on it. The good news, is that their last game of this forgettable season will now be unforgettable.

And lastly, if Jim Burr, Tim Higgins, and Earl Walton referee another game this season, whether it be in the Big East Tourney or the Big Dance, it will be a shame.

Gone In 165 Seconds

24 hours after it happened, and I still can't believe this. I am really beginning to not like Mike Rice at all. If you remember, he was the coach of the Robert Morris team that took Villanova to OT in the 1st round of last year's NCAA Tournament. Now he is the man behind this. It is one thing if you are Maryland blowing a 10-point lead to Duke in the last minute of the game. It is a whole different thing if you are Villanova blowing a 10-point lead to lowly Rutgers in the final 2:45 seconds of the game. This video saves some of the pain and starts at a 9-point game with 2 minutes left. I don't know why.



3 things of note here. First of all, I have not counted the exact amount of time that should have elapsed, but when Rutgers inbounded with 6.3 seconds left, the clock took a very long time to start. Michigan State approves of Rutgers's timekeeper.

Secondly, how was that a foul on Fisher on Mitchell's game-tying 3-pointer? I am begging someone to show me where contact was made at all, let alone enough contact to draw a foul on the last play of the game. There was no contact. There was no foul. Terrible, terrible call by the Big East refs. And to think that it was 3 days before the 3-year anniversary of this atrocity.

Thirdly, there is no excuse for blowing a 10-point lead with 2:45 left in the game to Rutgers. Absolutely none. And it was all Rutgers capitalizing on stupid Villanova mistakes. That is probably the worst part about it. If Villanova advances past the 1st weekend of the NCAA tournament this year, I'll be shocked. They can beat Syracuse and will probably play real well against Pittsburgh, but there just seems to be something about facing weaker competition away from home that this team can't handle. Providence stormed the court on them earlier a few weeks ago, and now Rutgers. Unacceptable.

The Egregious Officiating Blunder That Cost The Flyers An OT Game-winning Goal (A Complete Breakdown)

(Originally posted at Broad Street Hockey)

Let's get one thing straight: The Flyers did not deserve to beat the Flames today. They were outplayed and outworked by an inferior hockey team who is ranked 26th in the league in the overall standings.

Let's get another thing straight: The Flyers would have stolen a 2nd point from Calgary anyway, had the officials not made one of their biggest blunders of the season.

When Sean Avery instigated what is now known as the "Avery Rule" back in the 2008 playoffs, did anyone really think we would see it come up again? Maybe the lack of occurrence of the penalty caused the referees to forget what the penalty is for. It certainly is an explanation for calling it when they did.

Follow along with the jump for a complete breakdown of everything regarding this rule and this play.

I'm No Conspiracy Theorist, But Something Ain't Right here

"Rush out, out from the center, not like one side is any better. Stand up, as they bend reaching."

When the pre-season started back in 2009, laughing at how Chris Mortensen's son was an inept quarterback never did I once think that by Week 3 of the 2010, the Eagles starting QB would be Michael Vick. It's incredible. From being a starting NFL QB to a convicted felon to once again being a starting QB in the NFL. You couldn't write this.

But how did it happen? And why is it happening? And why did it come out the way it did? Andy Reid has, in typical Andy Reid fashion proclaimed again and again Kevin Kolb is his man at QB. Now all of a sudden that has changed. Now it's Vick. What changed? A game tearing apart one of the worst secondaries in football? And why did he make his decision on a Tuesday? If he was so wowed by Vick and his performance against a defense that employs CC Brown, why did he not make him the starter yesterday, after having reviewed the game film?

Andy Reid may be an idiot play caller, but he when it comes to personnel management, he is anything but. He may be stubborn, but he knows how to work players and a locker room. Think about this: when Vick was signed, half the people wanted no part of a formerly convicted dog-killer on their team. Now all of a sudden, the entire city has been clamoring for him to start for the Eagles over the past few weeks. I'll admit it, what I have been advocating over the past couple weeks in regards to Kolb has been the minority opinion of Eagles fans. Most people in Philly wanted a guy to start for their favorite team who they did not even want in their city a year ago. What does that say about the job Andy Reid and the Eagles organization have done in helping Vick and his 2nd chance, in addition to the work Vick has done to redeem for his past mistakes? Dare I say it, they've done too good of a job. PETA has not even ranted against the Eagles the past couple weeks. What does that say? To those who were anti-Vick because of the dog fighting, but have come around so much to support him and clamor for him as the Eagles QB, I salute you. Even the people at PETA. Perhaps the hardest thing to do in life is to forgive those who have wronged you.

I told you this post would be coherent, I didn't say it would be organized. I had no original intention of making a paragraph about morality on a football related post about what the fuck happened late in the afternoon on September 21, 2010. But that is what happens when you write about things that floor you. Andy Reid wavered and changed his mind in a way he never did before. He may have made surprising moves before, but there was always a plan in mind. When the Eagles traded McNabb, he knew what he was doing at the time. When the Eagles opted to not resign Brian Dawkins, him and the rest of the Eagles Front Office felt he was asking too much. Reid has always held steadfast along with the rest of the FO. Reid does not backstab players. The Eagles FO do not backstab players/QBs he claims he is sticking with. He is loyal to his players and he likes to see things through. He does not change the QB position because one guy had a bad 10 passes, got hurt, and the replacement had a strong 6 quarters. At least not before this.

People clamored for A.J. Feeley after the 2002 season, Reid stuck with McNabb, people clamored for Jeff Garcia after the 2006 season, Reid stuck with McNabb, people clamored for Kolb during the 2009 season, Reid stuck with McNabb. People clamor for Vick in the 2010 season when he has said time and again Kolb is his man…..and he goes with Vick? Most bizarre thing Reid has ever done. Ever.

So did Reid backstab Kolb? Who knew what and when? Maybe Kolb knew all along Reid was bullshitting the media before and after the game on Sunday when Reid said Kolb was starting against Jacksonville. But why be so adamant about it as he was? Surely when Reid declared Kolb was starting against Jacksonville before Vick lit up Detroit, he must have known that there was a chance Vick actually could light up Detroit. They are, after all, Detroit. It just does not add up.

Some suggest it is the weak offensive line and he wants to protect Kolb until the line improves. But wasn't this known, especially when Jamaal Jackson went down? Nothing on that front changed in the last day.

One of the writers of Bleeding Green Nation has some insider contacts and stated he heard a report that Kolb was experiencing some head pain in practice. While believable, why is not this getting published mainstream? Reid and the Eagles refute that this is not concussion/injury related. Everything else about his health over the past couple weeks seemingly has re: the concussion tests. If the report is true, why is it being kept secret?

Is Reid panicking? Highly unlikely. Reid just signed an extension last year. His job security should be safe with Kolb for at least past this year. If anything, this just turned a secure job into a potentially unsecure one. If anything, he put his job on the line when it was never there to begin with.

Donovan McNabb was Andy Reid's guy. The Front Office wanted to make the move to trade McNabb. Andy Reid was the last one on board with that. Is this Reid's revenge?

Reid said in his press conference that he was blown away by Michael Vick's rapid acceleration the past couple of weeks. Now that is something I believe. Small sample size or not, no one and their mother could have ever predicted that Vick would have been successful as he has been the 1st 2 games of this season. But while no doubt impressed, was it really that impressive to give a guy you promised the world to a big "fuck you?" 6 quarters of Vick and Kolb is riding the bench again.

Is there a trade going on here? A couple of months ago, former Philadelphia Eagles GM and current Cleveland Browns GM Tom Heckert said he would give 2 1st round picks to the Eagles for Kevin Kolb. Though they have been denied, reports have surfaced that the Browns have contacted the Eagles about Kolb. Is Heckert serious about giving up 2 1st round draft picks? If he is, Reid should make that trade pronto. This is the Cleveland Browns we are talking about. The probability that one of those 1st round draft picks is a top 5 overall pick is rather high. Andy Reid would have to be crazy not to say yes to that deal, if it even exists.

What is going untold here? What happened today was not Andy Reid. One thing we do know, the Eagles FO is very secretive. What happened and what changed may not be known in a while, if at all. Is it the offensive line theory? Is Reid panicking? Is it Kolb's health? Is Reid telling the truth and this is all about Vick? Is there a Vick extension in place? Is the potential of a work stoppage in 2011 clouding Andy's thoughts, causing him to think this is the Eagles last year and that it is all in or not at all? I don't know the answers to these questions. I want to know. But I don't. And I probably never will.

"My best theory? It's already in me."

The Eagles New Starting QB: Mike Vick

The Eagles only had a national media manufactured QB controversy before.  Now they have a real one.  I give you the stupidest thing Andy Reid has ever done.

Andy Reid has announced that Michael Vick is the Eagles starting quarterback

Has nothing to do with Kevin Kolb or his injury, his future is "not slighted one bit." Still says he can be a franchise quarterback.

Says it's all about Vick's "accelerated play." Calls Vick "the hottest quarterback in the NFL." Says Vick deserves to play, Kolb will be allowed to continue his maturation process.

Says it's his responsibility to continue evaluating and Vick's accelerated play prompted the decision to make a change.

Was asked whether one half of play was enough to evaluate Kolb. Andy says it wasn't about judging Kolb, he'll still be a Superbowl level QB. However, when you have a guy playing at the level that Vick is you have to let him play.

Reid says that this will help Kevin Kolb's maturation process and he will get to continue to learn.

Reid says he didn't expect the accelerated play of Vick when he made the decision to go with Kolb in preseason.

Says he's been meeting with Kolb over the past two days and that he wants to be the starter, but has accepted the decision. He says Kolb is unfortunately stuck behind an "Ex superstar that has now regained his abilities."

Reid says the team has seen the great play from Vick over the past two weeks and that has factored into the decision.

This team needs to win the Super Bowl now. If not, this move is a failure.

The entire franchise is set back a year now. The 1st rendition of the "Kevin Kolb era" lasted 10 passes. This year was always the developmental year. Now it's next year. I've defended Kolb on here for weeks. You know where I stand. I won't re-iterate my same talking points.

And, although I think this is the dumbest move Andy made in 10 years, maybe (read: I hope to fucking god) he sees something in Vick that includes more being able to tear up a defense unprepared for him and a defense that flat out sucks. It is absolutely unlike Andy to make a knee-jerk move like this. In a way that's encouraging. In another way, it reeks of desperation. I've always considered Reid very good if not great at player management. Maybe he thinks he is outsmarting everyone again. But, isn't this what everyone has been saying? JasonB of Bleeding Green Nation called this the "most Un-Andy move Andy has ever made." Can't say I disagree with him there. I've never been more shocked or surprised about a personnel move the Eagles have made since the start of Andy Reid's tenure. I admit, I did not see this coming at all. At all.

I've always seen Kolb as a 2-year plan. Reid's job was always safe through this year into last year. If this bombs, I think this could be the last big move he makes.

I hope Reid is right. I want Andy to be right. I want him to be right about this more than he has ever been right about anything in his life. I've always wanted Vick to succeed after prison and I am glad he is being given an opportunity he has probably earned (though I always thought that opportunity would be cashed in elsewhere). Michael Vick is now my quarterback and he has my undying support. If everything I said about Mike Vick and Kolb from the past few weeks is wrong, I will be the happiest Eagles fan ever. Happy not only to have witnessed the most successful reclamation project in football history, but this move being a success means Michael Vick would have accomplished something the Eagles have not done since 1960.

Michigan State, Notre Dame, Little Giants, And The Controversy That Really Should Not Be One

A "what the fuck are you thinking you fucking imbecile?" play if it does not work and the "CALL OF THE YEAR!" if it does work. And this play, known as Little Giants to Michigan State, worked to perfection, giving Michigan State a 34-31 OT victory over Notre Dame.

Now I am sure you are wondering, what on earth did I post 2 pictures showing ABC's play clock at 0 with Michigan State having not snapped the ball? To prove a point. ABC's play clock is not in sync with the play clock on the scoreboard. Look at the play clock on MSU's scoreboard. It still says 1 on it. Look at it on the 2nd screenshot. It says 0. Now watch the play. Per someone who can count tenths of a second better than I can, Michigan State got the snap off with .2 of a second expired after the ABC play clock expired. Now, the referees obviously cannot see that computerized play clock. They can only see the stadium one. Based on the screenshots, it can be reasonably assumed that the out of syncness is by .1 second. That leaves .1 second for the referees, who have to look for other things than just delays of game (i.e. false starts, offsides, illegal motion, etc.), to look up, notice the play clock has expired, recognize it is delay of game, and blow the whistle all in .1 of a second. Is it humanly feasible to blow that whistle in time? Probably, yes. A trained individual looking at the play clock could blow a whistle between the instant the clock expires and .1 seconds after said expiration. But given the nature of the referee's other responsibilities, is it reasonable to assume that we will get a delay of game whistle .1 seconds after the play clock expires? No, it is not.

And even if the estimation of tenths of a second is off here, blowing a whistle for delay of game is not a science. The next time you are watching a football game, watch how long it takes for a referee to blow a delay of game whistle. Often times it can take 1 to 2 whole seconds after the expiration of a play clock, though a referee who spots it at the just right instant probably has the play dead in .5 seconds. Notre Dame fans are going to get pissy about it. Heck, they already are, but until the age of robot referees hits us, you are not going to see delay of game penalties called that quickly in any level of football. It is just not reasonable to expect a referee who is watching for other infractions not clock related in addition to delay of game to blow a whistle for delay of game less than two-tenths of a second after the play clock expires.

(Note: If you are having problems reading the stadium scoreboard play clock, click on the pictures to enlarge. The difference between the 1 and the 0 is clear as day once enlarged, though unfortunately this is the largest Blogger will allow you to make them without pixelation.)

Update:  Here is a tremendous breakdown of the clock, the graphics, and the situation.



The Big East issued the following explanation that I agree 100% with.

"After review, the conference believes that the game officials correctly applied the proper mechanics and guidelines that are in place to determine, in a consistent manner, when a flag should be thrown for delay of game. The responsibility is assigned to the back judge, who in this situation was standing beneath the upright. Proper mechanics dictate that his focus be directed to the play clock as it approaches zero. When the play clock display reads zero, he must re-direct his attention to the ball. At that time, if the snap has not started, a flag will be thrown for delay of game. If the snap has begun, no flag will be thrown.

Under these procedures, there will always be a small amount of lag time between the time the clock reads zero and the time the back judge is able to see the football. On the play in question, this lag time created the situation where it appears the play clock expired just before the snap. We believe the snap occurred well within the normal lag time for the back judge to make this determination. This play is not reviewable under current NCAA rules."

That's a clean, fair and square win for Michigan State. I don't think I have ever seen a delay of game called 1/5 of a second after the play clock expires. If you are an upset Irish fan or just someone who is unhappy with the call, this video says it best. Deal with it.

(Hat tip to The Only Colors.)

The "Foul" That Cost The U.S. The Win Against Slovenia

You can see Carlos Bocanegra on the left part of the picture ever so slightly putting his arm around Nejc Pečnik. Never mind that Michael Bradley was practically humped to the ground or the other far worse infringements committed by Slovenia on the controversial free kick by Landon Donovan. That is (surely) what referee Koman Coulibaly saw. The whistle was blown before Maurice Edu got his foot on the ball, and while you can't see Donovan in this shot, the contact here was either right before or immediately after Donovan struck the ball, thus giving the referee enough time before blowing the whistle. And if I am wrong and this is not what Coulibaly saw, then the call is far worse than it already is if this is what he saw.

I spotted this by pure luck, and now that I have spotted it, I really wish that I didn't. Terrible, terrible call by Coulibaly. And while the U.S. should be completely giddy that they got a draw after such a piss poor first half, hopefully this blown call that cost the U.S. a steal of a win does not comeback to haunt them later down the road.

Update: The Searching Cross hypothesizes an explanation for why Koman Coulibaly decided to blow the whistle so soon and call a foul. If this is true, then this referee really should never referee another soccer game anywhere again.

Most media sources have largely chalked this one up to gross incompetence, but some have started to realize that we've been robbed much worse than we knew. I noticed this via a revelatory tweet, as Twitter user paddytim wrote to WhitlockJason:

"bs call was a make up call for a bad call on awarding free kick to US. Ref blew whistle before play even started. US guy dove"

Upon further review, this is exactly what Coulibaly was thinking. Here's how the play happened by his reasoning. (Click link for full video.) Jozy falls under contact to the neck from a Slovenian defender. Coulibaly blows his whistle for the free kick. He quickly doubts his decision, and this doubt is reinforced when he notices the linesman doesn't raise his flag. When the free-kick is struck, Coulibaly already has his whistle in his mouth and blows the play dead, without hesitation or any particular reaction to what's in front of him. In other words, he was resigned to whistling a makeup call from the moment he doubted his original call.

I barely even know where to begin with this logic. I guess let's start from the beginning: the play leading to the free kick was absolutely a foul. Jozy certainly embellished the contact, but it doesn't change the fact that the Slovenian defender put a hand to his neck. That's a foul and a free kick in any circumstance. It's comparable to Nigeria's red card against Greece: Torosidis rolled around like he was shot, but Kaita had still tried to spike a dude in the thigh. That's a red card no matter what, and a hand to Jozy's neck is a foul, no matter what.

Into the real issue: the make-up call. Let's even put aside that make-up calls are explicitly outlawed by FIFA. Simply put, it is still an unacceptable justification. Think about it, where does that thinking lead to? If he thinks he mistakenly awarded a penalty, does he give another one later? (What if that guy misses, how do those mistakes cancel out?) If he didn't realize he was giving a second yellow to a player, does he send off someone from the other team? A referee should never play karma by retrospectively evening out his own mistakes, because these decisions have ripple effects.

Wow. Just wow. I hope that this theory is false, but everything he theorizes fits into what happened. And he is absolutely right about the Altidore foul. Just because a player exaggerates contact, does not mean the player was not fouled at all. Talk about a moment of officiating incompetence that makes Jim Joyce look like a saint.

(Hat tip to kt1000 for sending me the link to this karma theory)

Will The Vuvuzelas Be Silenced?

For those living under a rock (or just not been watching the World Cup at all), the vuvuzelas are the plastic horns that have been played by the crowd in the World Cup, and when played in unison create a loud buzzing sound. And they have indeed succeed in creating quite the buzz early on in this World Cup. So much so that many are calling for them to be banned from the World Cup, and World Cup organizers have been entertaining the idea. From ESPN.com

South Africa's World Cup organizing chief Danny Jordaan said Sunday there is a chance vuvuzelas may be banned from inside stadiums after numerous complaints, BBC News has reported.

Asked whether he'd consider getting rid of the trumpets, he said: "If there are grounds to do so, yes. We did say that if any land on the pitch in anger we will take action."

France captain Patrice Evra has already blamed the noise generated by the vuvuzelas for his team's poor showing in its opening 0-0 draw with Uruguay.

"We can't sleep at night because of the vuvuzelas," Evra said. "People start playing them from 6 a.m. We can't hear one another out on the pitch because of them."

Jordaan said organizers are doing everything possible.

"We've tried to get some order," Jordaan said. "We have asked for no vuvuzelas during national anthems or stadium announcements. It's difficult, but we're trying to manage the best we can."

"I would prefer singing," he said.

The first-round contests introduced most of the world to the vuvuzela, a plastic trumpet carried into the matches and blown on incessantly by thousands of fans. On television, it sounds as if the game is being played before a nest of angry bees.

It's louder at the games than it is on the telecast. ESPN is altering the sound mix on its broadcasts to minimize the crowd noise, network spokesman Bill Hofheimer said. The network has accepted it as part of the atmosphere and has made no complaints about the vuvuzelas, he said.

The sound is driving others crazy, though.

"The constant drone of cheap and tuneless plastic horns is killing the atmosphere of the World Cup," wrote John Leicester, an international sports columnist for The Associated Press. He wrote that it is drowning out the oohs, aahs and cheers that lend excitement to the matches.

Plainly, many of the fans take pride in the tradition.

A website informing visitors about South Africa, www.safrica.info, describes the vuvuzelas as "a beautiful noise for the beautiful game."

It is quite obvious that the vuvuzelas have become an integral part of South African soccer and should be recognized as such. It is true that FIFA has a problem on their hands right now, and one that should have been prevented. We all got a taste of the vuvuzelas during the 2009 Confederations Cup, and after several complaints from players and broadcasters, FIFA were supposed to take serious consideration to banning them for the World Cup. FIFA did not learn their lesson and now they have millions upon millions of vuvuzelas out and about in South Africa annoying some people who prefer to not have to hear bee sounds 24 hours a day for a whole month. That being said, a ban on them now would be the most futile ban on something since Prohibition.

That's not to say I don't have a problem with the vuvuzelas, because I do. Their main purpose is to support South Africa's Bafana Bafana by creating a loud buzzing sound designed to resemble Bafana Bafana's buzzing around the soccer ball. This works because the Bafana Bafana wear yellow jerseys, thus, they really are like bees. That being said, what on earth is their purpose in soccer games not involving Bafana Bafana? In no way, shape, or form do vuvuzelas in anyway add to the atmosphere of a soccer match between U.S.A. and England. I want to hear the chants of the American and English crowd, and the overwhelming sound of the vuvuzelas prevent this. And that does not even begin to touch what it does to some of the South American crowds who come up with some of the most liveliest chants in soccer, rendered now completely inaudible on TV thanks to the vuvuzela. They drown out all noises in the crowd. If FIFA were smart and sensitive to everyone, they would have allowed the vuvuzelas only in games featuring Bafana Bafana. But that solution was too easy that no one thought of it. And now they have become the "soundtrack of the 2010 World Cup" and are waking the entire country up at 6 AM.

And if FIFA want to keep their heads physically attached to their shoulders, they need to keep it that way.

Should Bud Selig Have Overturned Armando Galarraga's Perfect Game?

By now everyone knows what happened last night. Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers was one out away from a perfect game when Jason Donald hit a groundball fielded by the 1st baseman. Armando went to cover the bag, stepped onto the bag, caught the ball, and held onto it all before former Philadelphia Phillies prospect Jason Donald stepped on the base. He should have been out. Umpire Jim Joyce ruled he was safe and the historic perfect game turned into a rather un-historic (though still very impressive) complete game one-hitter. There is no need to bring up the video and the picture. I'm sure you have seen it 1,000 times by now. There is no denying he should have been out and it should have been the 21st Perfecto in MLB history and a record breaking 3rd of the year.

The call was a mistake, umpire Jim Joyce has admitted to the mistake and apologized profusely. After the outrage last night, the Tigers have apologized for their intense reactions and earlier today Galarraga gave the line-up cards to Jim Joyce and shook his hand in a show of sportsmanship and forgiveness. Galarraga could be angry and hold a grudge. Jim Joyce could be unremorseful about it. Galarraga is accepting of the mistake, and Joyce has gone above and beyond in his attempts to make right with Galarraga and the Tigers organization. Both men should be commended for their efforts.

Originally this was going to be a "should MLB overturn the call post?", but MLB's statement has beaten me to the punch.

"First, on behalf of Major League Baseball, I congratulate Armando Galarraga on a remarkable pitching performance. All of us who love the game appreciate the historic nature of his effort last night.

"The dignity and class of the entire Detroit Tigers organization under such circumstances were truly admirable and embodied good sportsmanship of the highest order. Armando and Detroit manager Jim Leyland are to be commended for their handling of a very difficult situation. I also applaud the courage of umpire Jim Joyce to address this unfortunate situation honestly and directly. Jim's candor illustrates why he has earned the respect of on-field personnel throughout his accomplished career in the Major Leagues since 1989.

"As Jim Joyce said in his postgame comments, there is no dispute that last night's game should have ended differently. While the human element has always been an integral part of baseball, it is vital that mistakes on the field be addressed. Given last night's call and other recent events, I will examine our umpiring system, the expanded use of instant replay and all other related features. Before I announce any decisions, I will consult with all appropriate parties, including our two unions and the Special Committee for On-Field Matters, which consists of field managers, general managers, club owners and presidents."
print this page

It is highly unlikely that the call will be overturned.

I am always a proponent that the call must be right. But this is an exception. There are several things that Bud Selig and MLB can do, most of which were stated in MLB's statement below, but the absolute one thing that MLB should not do is overturn the call.

Donald was out, we all know that, but if this call would have been overturned, Pandora's Box would have opened up. So many blown calls at the end of the game would then be called into question. There is no doubt Joyce blew the call, but what happens if you go back and change this? What happens to every other blown call? All of a sudden there will be a firestorm every week with a new blown call where the result of the game should be overturned. Not only that, but MLB would have set the precedent where they can overturn the game.

Then that would eventually extend to the playoffs. Would World Series games be overturned on a blown call? So many blown calls surely affected the Tampa Bay Rays in the 2008 World Series? Should they be co-champions because of it? Just because a call is obviously wrong, it does not mean it should be reversed the next day.

There are ways to remedy this. But overturning the call is not one of them. Expand instant replay is a very good idea and a very good start. Develop a system of manager's challenges, that way stubborn umpires can't just ignore the complaining team/manager. It sucks for Galarraga, but overturning the call is not the proper way to remedy things. And what's going to happen anyway if they did overturn it? Galarraga can never have that moment back on 1st base where he can embrace Cabrera after perfection? It will be all too bittersweet and feel wrong. To change a game that drastically sets a bad precedent for now and for the future.

Now You Can Say You Saw Roy Halladay Pitch A Perfect Game Live At Sun Life Stadium!

Everyone and their mother know that Roy Halladay pitched MLB's 20th perfect game at Sun Life Stadium on May 29, 2010, so there is no use in talking about that anymore. But a whole lot more people are going to say they saw it live now!

Over 25,000 fans were there to see it live (click here if you want to read an awesome account of a Phillies fan who was there), but now, there are going to be quite a few liars among us. Why is that, you say? The Marlins are selling unused tickets! At the right price, you (yeah, you!) can say you saw Roy Halladay pitch a perfect game at Sun Life Stadium and have the ticket to prove it! From the Palm Beach Post.

Marlins President David Samson doesn't understand all the fuss about his team selling unused tickets from Roy Halladay's perfect game.

"It's not as though there's consumer fraud going on. There are people who are well aware of the result. We're not misleading anybody. No one is buying a ticket thinking they're going to the game. No one is saying 'I wonder who wins?' '

The Marlins sold 3,000 tickets in the first four hours Tuesday, mostly upper deck seats at about $15 each, for a game that was played Saturday in front of 25,086.

The decision to sell the unused tickets has attracted national attention - from debates on ESPN's SportsCenter to an endorsement from Dom Imus. One issue is that the unused tickets - which will be sold all year to meet demand - will count toward the team's final attendance tally.

"We're a low-revenue team trying to raise revenue. I would not have expected this to get any attention," Samson said. "It's baseball history. We're just selling tickets."

The Chicago White Sox sold un-used tickets from Mark Buehrle's perfect game last year, but that drew little notice because it was the home team's pitcher who threw the perfect game. Samson dismissed the notion that the Marlins were profiting from another team's feat.

Most sales have come from the Philadelphia area.

Now if I had gone to that game, then I might be a bit miffed that there are unused tickets being legally sold by the Florida Marlins organization, but I am not, and if a Phillies fan (or a baseball fan/collector in general) wants to purchase the tickets as a souvenir that will give them something to remember the game by, then I really can't say I have a problem with that. And people are buying them, so like it or not, it is working. Sure it could get a bit irritating that made up accounts of the game will be going around, but to those that just want a part of history, I do not see a problem with the unused ticket sales.

Did Someone At The Bell Centre Try To Sabotage The Flyers Yesterday?

Now whether or not this was just an accident or an actual case of sabotage on the part of someone from the Canadiens organization, Bell Centre staff, or Habs fan(s) will likely never be known. But an interesting there was a rather interesting discovery in the walkway leading from the Flyers locker room to the ice at Bell Centre. Littered across said walkway was sand or a sand-like substance. Now for those not sure what impact this has to do with anything, sand can dull skate blades, and its impact on the Flyers win in Game 4 was very noticeable. Several Flyers needed to head to the locker room to get their skates sharpened (Mike Richards led the most times sharpened with 5). From myFoxPhilly.

Broadcasters at NBC first pointed out during Game 4 on Saturday that the Flyers' key players kept disappearing to get their skates sharpened during the game, which the Flyers won 3-0.

In fact, Mike Richards and Claude Giroux missed stretches of game time, with Richards having to get his skates sharpened five times.

At one point, Richards was spotted standing in his socks. He missed about 3 minutes of game time, because he had to wait for teammate Kimmo Timonen, who was also having his skates sharpened.

The possible culprit: a large amount of a sand-like substance found on the access area to the Flyers' bench, which the Philadelphians had to walk through to get to the ice.

The sand may have put large nicks in the Flyers' skates until the team put towels over the walkway.

In Montreal, there is no mention of the tampering in the Montreal Gazette. The NHL had no comment to the AP about the incident. Some Flyers coaches and players downplayed the incident.

But in other parts of Canada and in the U.S., the incident has raised a lot of questions of how the sand got near the Flyers bench during such a critical time.

In the Toronto Sun, one writer questioned if it was the lackluster Habs who were stuck in a sandstorm.

"The Montreal Canadiens looked like they were skating in sand in Game 4 of the Eastern Conference finals," said Chris Stevenson.

Frank Seravelli from the Philadelphia Daily News brought up an obvious question: How did sand get into the Bell Center when the nearest beach is 180 miles away?

He says at least five Flyers players had to leave the game at one point due to skate issues.

Adding to the mystery are comments made by Richards, who said Flyers assistant equipment manager Harry Bricker believed the substance on the floor was “a little too big for being sand pellets.”

Flyers coach Peter Laviolette didn't point any fingers at Montreal for the sand problem and said he wasn't aware of any issues. He would only acknowledge that some Flyers players had "skate issues."

Off the record, two Flyers told Anthony Sanfilippo of the Journal Register that someone may have been up to no good in Montreal.

“I don’t know where it came from,” one Flyer told Sanfilippo. “But it was definitely getting in our skates. To have that many skate problems in one game is rare, no, more than rare, it’s unheard of.”

It is important to note that sand does not show up out of nowhere. Montreal is not Atlantic City. The Bell Centre is not Boardwalk Hall. I am not going to point any fingers to anyone, but I am going to bring up the question of how a foreign substance resembling sand finds its way to the Flyers walkway (and only the Flyers walkway) inside the Bell Centre, especially when the closest beach is over 2 hours away from the arena. Is it possible that there is an explanation that this is some sort of freak accident? Yeah, it is possible, though knowing Montreal and some of the shit they have tried to pull in this series alone, it would not wholly surprise me if someone from the organization, close to the organization, or even an unruly fan decided it would be a good idea to blatantly sabotage the Flyers. The good news that comes out of this: if it was sabotage, the plan clearly backfired as even though they had skate problems, the Flyers still went on to win the game 3-0.

Lance Armstrong Is A Bit Miffed At Versus

Cycling is a sport too! Just ask Lance Armstrong, who was rather angry last night at Versus contractual obligation to cut off off last night when Versus cut away from the last mile of the Tour of California in order to show hockey "pre-game."

Last night, Armstrong tweeted: "Who's the dumbass @versustv that cut off @AmgenTourofCali coverage w/ a mile to go for pregame hockey?? #pathetic"

Now it is important to note that they encouraged all their viewers to go on their website to watch the end of the race, and they did stress this multiple times over a period of 10 minutes, so viewers could be prepared. And while I certainly sympathize for the 5 people that were actually watching that that could not see it on their computer for whatever reason, Versus does have contract obligations to switch to hockey at 7:00. In fact, in an irony, before Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals, Versus ran overtime with the cycling race, showing post-race interviews, leaving Flyers fans fuming with a crawl saying that coverage of the game coming up next and no sign to when cycling would end. The cycling race did end before the puck drop and no one missed anything, but Versus surely got a lot of hate mail from hockey fans, and naturally, since the NHL is Versus' most precious commodity, they have started taken those contract obligations more seriously now.

Per Travis Hughes of SB Nation, there is potential for another overrun before tomorrow's Flyers-Habs Game 3 and it will be interesting to see how Versus handles the potential of another overrun. Do they stick with the contract, or will a network whose initial main draw was cycling and showing Lance Armstrong win his Tour de Frances go back to their roots and leave hockey fans in the dark? If that is the case, expect me to make some slight alterations to Lance Armstrong's tweet.

Jeff Francoeur Has A Hissy Fit

You will not like Jeff Francoeur when he's angry. And by moving the Phillies-Blue Jays series from Toronto to Philadelphia because of the G20 Summit, MLB has made Jeff Francoeur angry. Former Phillies beat writer and current writer for the New York Daily News, Andy Martino, published the quote that made I am sure he believed his former fans would enjoy quite a bit.

"That's just bull----," Francoeur said. "That's not really fair. That's just not fair. It's ridiculous. Absolutely crazy."

Well, no one really said it was fair. The fact the NL East favorite happened to be scheduled in Toronto at the same time as the G20 Summit right across the way is nothing if not a coincidence. MLB solved it by moving the games to Philadelphia (complete with the Phillies batting first and the DH rule being in place!). It is hardly a fair solution, no doubt about that, but at the same time, as a Phillies fan, you can't help but laugh. I will never say that MLB's solution to this is in any way a fair one, but the direct and indirect hilarity it has brought out is absolutely priceless.

It's Official: The Phillies Are Playing 84 Home Games In The 2010 Series

Well that was a quick resolution, wasn't it? Because of the G20 summit occurring right across the way from Rogers Centre at the same time as this year's Phillies-Blue Jays series to be played June 25-27 has in fact been moved to Philadelphia. MLB.com has more of the details on the move.

Considering the close proximity of the two sites, the Blue Jays consulted with the G20 organizers and decided that moving the baseball games to a different location offered the best solution. It is a series that was expected to draw a large crowd in Toronto, given that it would have marked the return of former Jays ace Roy Halladay, who was traded to the Phillies in December.

"We regret we had to make this decision," Blue Jays president and CEO Paul Beeston said. "But given what's happening on those three days, and the focus that will be on the downtown core of Toronto, and the fact that we are situated right next door to them, where the G20 is going to take place, we felt it was in the best interest of everybody to move the games.

"It's particularly disappointing, for very obvious reasons, with Roy Halladay coming back. Roy, who had been with the organization for as long as he'd been here, it was our opportunity for the fans and for ourselves to give him the appreciation for what he had done and what he had meant to this team."

Beeston said that the Blue Jays will put in a request with Major League Baseball to host the Phillies in Toronto as part of Interleague Play in 2011. If the series is scheduled as Beeston hopes, that will give Toronto a chance to honor Halladay during his first trip north of the border since parting ways with the organization.

Major League Baseball approved the series relocation after discussing the situation with the Blue Jays, the Phillies, the G20 Summit Management, the Integrated Security Unit and the city of Toronto.

"After reviewing all of the options with the parties and taking all of the security considerations into account, it was determined that the best course of action is to play the series in Philadelphia," Commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement. "I appreciate the cooperation of the Blue Jays, the Phillies and all of the parties who have helped resolve this challenging situation."

While the games will take place on the road, they will still be considered "home" contests for the Blue Jays. The designated hitter will be utilized, and Toronto will have the last at-bat in each of the games. The June 25 game is scheduled for 7:05 p.m. ET and the June 27 contest will begin at 1:35 p.m. The time of the June 26 game has not been finalized.

Beeston noted that the Jays and Phillies have a financial agreement to share the revenue generated from the series at Citizens Bank Park.

"This wasn't a negotiation," Beeston said. "The Phillies are terrific people to deal with. We were fortunate that we were playing the Phillies at this time, so we could sit down with [Phillies president and CEO] Dave Montgomery. I've had a number of conversations with him, starting back when it was first announced.

"As it became a little bit more definitive that it was happening, we kept him informed as to what was happening. He's got costs of putting on the games, so we've worked out an arrangement that hopefully will make us both revenue neutral."

Beeston, who emphasized that the relocation was ultimately the Blue Jays' decision, said the teams discussed shifting the series to Cleveland's Progressive Field or Detroit's Comerica Park. At the end of the day, though, moving to a neutral site was never a serious part of the discussions.

"No, it really wasn't considered," Beeston said. "I guess that was an option, whether we'd go to Cleveland or whether we'd go to Detroit or whether we'd go up to Ottawa and play in one of those places. At the very conclusion of all our deliberations, the easiest was just to go to Philadelphia."

According to Beeston, another alternative was to play a doubleheader in Toronto on June 25 with a night game on June 26, creating an off-day on June 27 to help account for the G20 activities. Beeston said there were still too many unknowns to go through with that proposed plan.

I guess that's just a matter of being scheduled in the right place at the right time if you are the Phillies. I must admit that even I was looking forward to Halladay's return to Toronto, but Roy Halladay has nothing on global officials with a political agenda. Hopefully they can schedule that series for next year and also hopefully the Phillies will be able to take advantage of the added home games they now have.

There Is A Possibility The Phillies Will Have More Home Games Than Any Team In Baseball This Season...

These are just the kinds of privileges you get when you are 2 time defending NL Champions, bitches. Actually no, not really. Just what happens when you are scheduled to play in Toronto on the just right date. But I do like to feel like I am privileged in some sort of way, so just let me have my glory and let me think it is the former, kk? Anyway, I guess I should catch you up to speed on how we got to this point.....

I thought I brought this up a few months ago but have not been able to find the post. Anyways, in case I did not and it was just something I threw up on Twitter real fast, the Phillies are scheduled a series in Toronto in June during interleague play. Just one slight problem: The G20 summit is scheduled right across the way on Toronto during that same time. And that's an apparent problem. The games must be played, so if they cannot be played in Toronto, where do you play them? At a neutral site somewhere? One possible solution: move the series to Philadelphia and thus give the Phillies 84 home games this season. From Phillies beat writer Todd Zolecki's MLBlog, The Zo Zone.

The Phillies playing 84 games would be kind of a big deal, so I contacted Katy Feeney, who is MLB's senior vice president of scheduling and club relations. I asked her: "Is there any chance that series is moved to Philly or elsewhere, or is the series definitely going to be played in Toronto?"

Her response: "We are fully aware of the situation and working with the Blue Jays and the G20 organizers and security as well as the Phillies and once a final determination is made for any of the games, we will announce."

While there is no inkling as to what the destination might be, it certainly does not sound like the game is going to be played at Skydome Rogers Centre. Will it be Philadelphia? It could be, after all, Toronto is not exactly home to baseball stadiums left and right. This is pure speculation on my part and is backed up with absolutely 0 facts, historical trends, or rumors, but I am thinking the games either get moved around on the schedule, get moved to Citizens Bank Park, Ottawa Baseball Stadium, or even possibly Olympic Stadium in Montreal. Regardless, I do not see high ranking officials with a political agenda allowing baseball games to be played right by where they are meeting. For security reasons, of course.

Dolphins GM Jeff Ireland, Dez Bryant, And The Revelation Of Context (UPDATED: And Social Disorganization Theory

I think we all know the story of Jeff Ireland and Dez Bryant by now. For those that have been living under a rock, it is being reported that in an interview with now Cowboys WR Dez Bryant, Dolphins GM Jeff Ireland asked Dez whether or not Dez's mom was a prostitute. Ireland has since apologized and the issue has seemingly been brushed under the rug, but what if there was more to it than just that? To everyone sitting on their ass now thinking that this story is nothing but the world's dumbest football interview question, I can tell you right now, you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. And by the end of this post, you will be sorry for saying anything you said negatively about Miami Dolphins GM Jeff Ireland.

It's about the media and people protecting Dez Bryant. In other words, this is not a story about a dumb interviewer, it's about the absence of context and now the revelation.

It started with an interview Marcellus Wiley did for ESPNEWS, and continued in a long string of tweets from Wiley. The initial question by Ireland was manufactured by Mike Silver at Yahoo! and Brooks of SbB. A recent stream of tweets from Marcellus Wiley further teased the truth.

I actually do! RT @pigskinpundit @marcelluswiley Do you know yourself the exact context in which that question is asked? I'm struggling to C

BINGO! RT @Kaleem88 @marcelluswiley I don't think Jeff was in the wrong, I think he worded the question wrong

Big Biz PR! RT @raromero07 then why hasnt Ireland come w/ the rest of the story yet to clear his name? why apologize if there was more 2 it

Bcuz Dez knows the TRUTH & CONTEXT of the ?'s RT @ronwahl Dez is not making a big deal of this-why is everyone else going berserk over it

I'm not the only person that knows the entire story, but every1 is trying to protect Dez. That's why it's not out YET!

Out of respect, another trying to protect Dez RT @nickborrelli Why didn't Ireland tell the public what the context was when he apologized?

Every1 reacted (understandably so) with emotion to this story, diminishing the cognitive thought process. Sit back & think w/o emotion.....

.and the truth and the context of the question will start to crystallize. Their is a justifiable reason why someone asked him that question

I know this is sensitive stuff...and trust me, I get that. But sometimes in life, you have to deal with real, despite how painful it is!

And now the money tweets. The moment when you will no longer make fun of Jeff Ireland and heck, the moment you will apologize to Jeff Ireland. You think I am kidding? The line of questioning by Ireland was perfectly rational though just poorly worded. You will soon see that.

First, a follower of Wiley hitting the nail right on the head:

BINGO! RT @RealCedAllen Takin a guess but never heard ANYTHING bout Dez's pops! Is it that he was once a pimp? That would give reason 2 ask.

And a (presumably condensed) version of the transcript in 140 characters from (of all things) the Dan LeBatard Show Twitter account.

Here's dolphins side: what does dad do? Pimp. Mom? Works for dad. She's a prostitute? No she helps him with other stuff.

All of a sudden does this all make sense?

People everywhere want to protect Dez Bryant. But when you admit in an interview in response to the standard question of what your father does for a living (I've been on both sides of interviews, family background is standard stuff here, folks) and you answer "pimp," is asking if the mother is a prostitute not a reasonable follow-up. Could it have been worded better? Sure, Ireland could have worded it better, but Dez set himself up for that. After all, does a pimp not often find themselves with prostitues? Asking that as a follow-up is not reaching far. And even Silver did not lead with that quote in his story on Dez where he first brought it up. Aside from that one quote buried, why else did Dez Bryant not make this a huge story? Because he knew the context. And why were people so afraid to admit this context? Because people wanted to protect Dez Bryant from the word getting out to the public that he admitted in an interview that his father was a pimp. You think the Dolphins are going to reveal the context and throw Dez under the bus like that? Hell no, they are not. They did the right thing by not speaking up or saying anything. You do not throw a kid under the bus, but a certain Mike Silver could be one to ask, "okay, Dez, why would they ask if your mother was a prostitute?" And then when he found out the perfectly rational context of the whole story then just drop it and not print it and lead to a whole controversy.

Of course, the context will never get out to the public like the original story did, so a lot of people will go on thinking that Jeff Ireland is an incompetent jackass who with no justification at all asked a kid who survived a tough childhood if his mother was a prostitute. I just hope more people learn the truth about what happened behind close doors and do not judge a man and his beliefs based off of that.

Update: Mike Silver apparently just spoke to a source close to Dez who says the Dolphins story is bullshit. That source cites the apology as the main reason the Dolphins story can't be true. This has already been well covered above, but I shall elaborate further in that how many times have you apologized just to move on from an awkward situation, even if you were not at fault just to get away from it all, end the madness, take the hit and move on with more important things.

Instead of re-stating what he says, I will quote Dan Levy from the Sporting Blog, who brings up a very interesting and valid point that even if the Dolphins are lying and this was a random, out-of-the-blue question that contrary to belief, asking Dez Bryant about his mother like that is nowhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be, and in fact, a rather smart interview question, if worded a lot better.

It's actually quite amazing to me how much fervor this has created, making me feel like a bit of a sociopath for thinking the question was tactless, but fair to ask a guy you're potentially going to give millions of dollars to. In addition, hearing the team's explanation, it was clearly germane for Ireland to ask that question in that context. By all accounts, the question may have been disrespectful, but it seems that Bryant opened the door.

And while were on it, I just don't see how sending private investigators to research a prospect's background – something the league and teams regularly do – is okay, but asking a kid a question like this about his mom is off limits. Michael Vick was adamant about the fact that he didn't think dog fighting was all that bad because he was raised in an environment where the practice was commonplace. So shouldn't teams be doing their research as to what type of criminality a prospect is exposed? My wife, a PhD in Criminal Justice, went back and forth with me on this:

"Social Disorganization Theory says any exposure to that sort of criminal life can make you more likely to do it. Social Bond Theory says that, in essence, subjects form bonds with people and – to put it a way sports fans can understand – being around people who do bad things does make someone more likely to do bad things themselves.

"Having said that, there are many criminological theories that suggest that free will is more important than socialization."

In other words, people should be able to decide right from wrong on their own, but there are theories that indicate being exposed to a life full of bad decisions could lead to bad decisions. With millions of dollars at stake, it's amazing if more people didn't ask the questions Ireland did…albeit with a little more tact.

Now I had never heard of Social Disorganization Theory before this, but I've looked it up. It exists. What Levy's wife says about it is true. So while on the outset if may not seem that asking about a guy's mother in a football interview, regardless of context, is completely irrelevant, if you are thinking about possibly committing millions of dollars to the guy, don't you think you would like to know a little more about his chances of getting into trouble? He may have stayed out of trouble before, but that does not mean anything about the future. You may think the kid is a good kid, but you never know for sure.

Regardless of whose side of the story turns out to be correct (and we'll never know for sure until we see the transcript), why does any of this matter? While I initially let my emotions guide me in my thoughts of Ireland, it has become quite clear that whether out of the blue or in a germane context, knowing that a person you are potentially paying millions of dollars to had a rough childhood with a mother who is only 15 years older than him and asking about that is not offensive, is not insensitive, is perfectly relevant (especially if you consider Social Disorganization Theory and Social Bond Theory), and should even be done more often. It's like Levy said, you hire private investigators to investigate and research every aspect of these kids private lives. Then something like this poorly-worded, well-intentioned interview question comes out and all of a sudden the outcry against Ireland and the Dolphins is on the levels of political scandal??????

What the fuck?

A P.S. To Yesterday's Rant

Normally I would just add this as an update to yesterday's rant, but because I don't want to take away from the last paragraph, I will make a brief post on this because not only did the NHL Officials completely flub up the rules in yesterday's Flyers-Penguins game in their process of getting to the call (another screw up in that department was they looked at the jumbotron, something they can't do), but they screwed up the call. Here is photographic evidence that Marc-Andre Fleury was indeed out of the crease at the point of contact and photographic evidence that Ville Leino did his best to avoid contact.




From these pictures, you can see Ville Leino did his best to stop and avoid contact with Fleury (though the refs did rule incidental contact they did not enforce the play as such) by putting on his brakes and Marc-Andre Fleury was at least a foot out of his crease as you can clearly see from the overhead, thus Leino cannot be faulted for said incidental contact.

(Hat tip to Pro Hockey Talk and Broad Street Hockey)

How Can Toronto Possibly Call This No Goal? And Other Officiating Atrocities From Tonight's Flyers Game

Click for larger. The puck is at least 1/8 an inch over the line! It should be clear from this picture and everyone that is not blind that this is a goal. The puck was knocked into the net by Kimmo Timonen for the Flyers goal to bring them within 1 in the 3rd period of what was before a 2-0 hockey game. Yet after looking at it for over 5 minutes, the league concluded that the puck was not over the line. Click for larger and clearer if you must.

Though that was not the only crime by NHL referees against the Flyers. Consider this incident, while ignoring the idiotic commentary of from Garry Galley who would not know textbook boarding if right above the boarding there was a huge neon sign saying "THIS IS WHAT BOARDING LOOKS LIKE, RECOGNIZE IT YOU DUMB TWIT"



Is there any intelligent hockey fan that can tell you that that was not boarding. And to Galley's point that you can't trust a guy not to hit you, well, you can't trust that, but you should be able to trust that someone is not going to send you flying 4 feet headfirst into the boards, that's for sure. And for the ignorant dingbats who think that Gagne may have embellished.......this is a man that has had 3 concussions in his career. Why would he send himself flying head first into the boards like that???

All in all, that was not called, but 5 minutes for fighting in Gagne were. Oh, and 2 minutes for Gagne for instigating. And another 2 for something about instigating with a face shield. And a 10-minute misconduct. What did Volchenkov get? 2 minutes for roughing for that scrum. And I am not even going to blame Gagne. The refs missed a blatant elbow call earlier in the game by Volchenkov on Carcillo. It had become quite clear that the referees were in no business to call penalties on dirty plays by Senators and seeing as they were not going to stand up for him, Gagne had no choice but to stand up for himself. And I don't even care that he got penalized, he absolutely did the right thing by going after Volchenkov. It resulted in a 7-minute PP for Ottawa (which Philly killed all of, by the way) but I could not be happier for him. It's about time someone on this team stuck up for themselves and it's about damn time we saw some damned emotion out of a team lacking it. They did not convert it, they did not win the game, but if the NHL and the referees are not going to stand up for Simon Gagne, then he had every right to go after Volchenkov like that. And I applaud him for it.

You can call me a whiny Flyers fan all day long and delusionaly discredit everything I am saying because of that, but does any of that change what is so painfully obvious? Can you see for yourselves that the puck was across the line in that picture? Can you see for yourselves the textbook boarding job that Volchenkov did on Gagne? And look, I am not even saying the Flyers would have won that game if not for the refs. They played an inconsistent game and failed to convert on the PP opportunities they did have, but were they given a fair shake in this game? Absolutely not. Do hockey fans in general deserve better than this? Yes they do.

In his game recap at Broad Street Hockey, Geoff Detwiler summed it up the best.

Any casual fan watching this game must have been left asking what is wrong with the NHL. The answer is that games like this are all too common. Before getting all "The NHL hates Philadelphia", know that these sorts of things happen everywhere. Detroit has had some of the most ridiculous calls go against them, and they've surely lost count. Matt Cooke goes unsuspended. Hell, Mike Richards didn't get suspended. Alex Ovechkin is constantly in the middle of these debates. It isn't anything against Philadelphia. It's the NHL.

Update: If you want to watch the highlights of the game which include what the waved off Timonen goal looked like, you can watch the highlights here. That play starts at the 6 minute and 48 second mark. For you curiousity seekers who want to know how Jim Jackson, Bill Clement, and Steve Coates reacted to the Gagne hit, fast forward go to the 4 minute, 25 second mark.

Carcillo And Gaborik Drop The Gloves; Flyers Fans See Facts, Rangers Fans See Delusions

Oh man, I love hockey. The Flyers played a picture perfect game which included Ray Emery getting a much needed shutout a shaky performance against Washington and only showing slight improvement against Columbus. But the part of the game that was most talked about had nothing to do with goals, but rather it was a fight between Carbomb Dan Carcillo and Marian Gaborik.

While the result of the fight was as one would figure, the start of the fight has already created quite a bit of controversy between Flyers fans and Rangers fans.

Normally I would run the video first, but at the risk of corrupting your minds of delusions as the only video of the fight online is that of the Rangers MSG broadcast, I will give you the facts of what happened first, let you spot those facts for yourself as you watch, and you can laugh at the delusions.

Here is what happened:

Ray Emery made a save with players in front of the net. Tollefson of the Flyers and Dubinsky of the Rangers pushed and shoved in front of the net.

Carcillo, gloves on, engaged Gaborik to the glass. Carcillo settles down as if to end it, knowing that it is not his purpose in the game to start a fight with a team's star player. Yes, he has a reputation, but Laviolette has coached him well and his discipline has grown enormously in the past few months. Well for Carbomb's standards at least, but I digress....Gaborik then starts pushing back and manages to get Carcillo up against the class. It is at this point, unprompted, Marion Gaborik starts dropping his gloves and lands a brief punch in while Carcillo responds to Gaborik's green light of his gloves dropping by dropping his own gloves.

So do you understand? Gaborik dropping gloves = green light for Carcillo to destroy shit.

And now, here is the video of the fight, complete with whiny Rangers announcers painting Dan Carcillo as evil incarnate. Watch with pleasure, listen at your own risk.



From the official Rangers Twitter right after the fight: "Carcillo jumps Gaborik, lands flurry of punches; Torts screaming at Laviolette; #Rangers furious; #NYR still down 1-0"

Did anyone see a jumping there?

John Tortorella kept exclaiming after the game how there was "no honor" in that, according to TSN's James Duthie on Twitter (EDIT: exact quotes from Tortorella: "I was frustrated because there’s simply no honor, I sit behind the bench with a suit and tie on. I’m not trying to run anybody down, I just think there’s a lack of honor." and "Well, there’s no honor in that, I don’t play the game, I don’t wear the uniform. I don’t want to say too much about it, but there’s simply no honor in that."). How was that not honorable? It's part of the game. Gaborik dropped his gloves first while tangled up with Carbomb. Fighting is part of the game of hockey like it or not, and when that happens and you do it against the other team's biggest fighter, guess what, Marion is going to get the crap beat out of him.

Now Rangers fans will try to tell you that Dan Carcillo was licking his chops all game to get at Marian Gaborik based off of a quote that Carcillo made. Well, they would be taking things out of context, here is the quote, full context, and while you will see how the Rangers will take the quote out of context to fit their delusional narrative of events, that is not what was said.

Here's the full quote: "“I wasn’t expecting him to drop his gloves and when he did, I was pretty much licking my chops."

And why would not Carcillo be licking his chops? Gaborik is a big time scorer on a hot streak. If you can get him out of the game for 5 minutes, by all means, take advantage of that opportunity. While Tortorella is on his delusion of dishonor, it really is a smart play by Carcillo that just so happens to allow him to do what he is best at: fighting.

Now there are some Rangers fans that are claiming that Gaborik was just defending himself when he dropped the gloves, which makes no sense on so many levels because Gaborik was on the aggressive side of the pushing at the time, not Carbomb, and secondly, why on earth would Gaborik defend himself by stripping himself of armor? If he was just trying to protect himself, wouldn't he want gloves? And

The good news though is that not all Ranger fans are like this. Consider this report on the game from, of all things, the Rangers correspondent at The Bleacher Report

At 5:43 into the second period, Daniel Carcillo pounded on Marion Gaborik. I know all about this and what Carcillo did was not wrong. If you watch the reviews , it was quite obvious that it was Gaborik trying to discard his gloves well before Carcillo did. Basically Gaborik had no idea what he was doing because that was just a stupid move on his part. Of Course Carcillo is going to drop the gloves and start swinging if he sees that a player is looking to do the same to him, and that is exactly what happen. Hey this is hockey, it is a tough sport and a fighting sport regardless who you are. Gaborik didn’t stand a chance but at the same time , his teammates should have jumped in before that beating could have ever taken place. No i didn't like the idea of Gabby getting a beating, He is not a fighter. but it was Gabby who really did drop the gloves first.

Logic! From a Rangers fan! At last!

Now I know what you are thinking, The Bleacher Report is normally a bunch of bullshit, so therefore, maybe those delusional Rangers are not so delusional after all.

Well, I will end with this one last screenshot of the video above.

As you can clearly see, there is only one glove on the ground. And if you look at the players, you can make out a bare fist. Trace the fist and see the jersey that the fist is coming from and whose fist does it end up being? The fist of the man who started the fight: Marian Gaborik.

Game 49, preview and game thread: New York Rangers at Philadelphia Flyers (Broad Street Hockey)

Flyers win 2-0, Rangers delusional in defeat (Broad Street Hockey)