off days and umpires

there's no Mets game today, which feels strangely un-tethering... no matter what I do tonight, I won't miss a game, but at the same time, no matter what I do tonight, I won't see the Mets play. turns out I won't be teaching, either, so L and I will have a falafel and ice cream date.

I've been thinking a lot about umpires this week, because there have been a number umpire-related incidents involving the Mets so far this season, and because yesterday it was the umpire who decided the game. which is not to say that umpires don't usually decide the game-- at an elemental level, that's their job-- but the changing borders of the strike zone during the last game in San Francisco had a decisive impact on the game's outcome.

last week, Tony Randazzo blew at least three calls in the first two innings, and then threw Willie Randolph out of the game (after he'd turned to go back to the dugout, natch) when he pointed out that if you're gonna blow a call at first base twice in a single inning in favor of one team, it's only fair to blow the same call in favor of the opposing team when presented with the opportunity. though we ended up winning that one in extra innings, it was the kind of event that makes you wonder why they don't use instant replay in baseball.

once in Arizona and once in San Francisco, a well-hit ball bounced off the top of the fence in the outfield and bounced back into the park. both, upon reply, reveal themselves to be ground rule doubles, but both were called home runs by the second base umpires because of fan interference. of course, in neither case did the fan actually interfere. the second time, the guy who made the call was Bruce Froemming, the umpire of longest standing in the majors. he made the call from the dirt behind second base. if that's not presumptuous, the word needs a new definition.