Blown Call in Tiger - Red Sox game

A blown strike three call (see excellent recap here) helped the Red Sox to a 7-4 victory over the Tigers.  Both the home plate and first base umpire missed the clear fact that the catcher, Gerald Laird caught the ball.  There is also little evidence that the ball was even foul tipped, rendering the whole issue of whether it was caught moot.

Thought I am in favor of more instant replay in baseball (I think giving managers a single red flag, similar to football, would be a great idea) this quick judgement call is probably not a good argument for replay.  Instead, give Mike Aviles credit for arguing first that he tipped the ball, and that Laird failed to catch it.  Especially when Aviles probably knew that he was, er, stretching the truth.

The solution is up to the players to "police" Aviles for stretching the limits.  Verlander is pitching for Detroit tonight, and he throws 100 MPH.  Aviles should not dig in at the plate.

Charles Blow is a partisan hack - absurd NYT Editorial

Charles Blow complains about a Republican "super PAC" that would bring up Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.  He goes on to disparage Romney:

Romney used to be a pragmatic, right-leaning centrist. That was until he checked his principles and previous positions at the door so that he could cavort with the Tea Party.

Finally, buried around paragraph 15, Blow mentions that "Romney rightly repudiated it."  If you read that article, the plans by the PAC to bring up Wright were published in the Thursday NY Times, and, that same day, Romney clearly stated “I repudiate that effort" and “I think it’s the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign.”

So Romney shows some character by repudiating a partisan attack on Obama.  Yet Blow hides this fact, and instead uses the episode to claim that Romney lacks principles.  What would he want Romney to do?  Blow is a partisan hack.

Many of the comments miss the point that Romney repudiated the effort.  Apparently Blow the hack did a good job of hiding that.