As 2019 comes to a close, we wrap our year with one final topic before we move on:  the ignorance of pundits to facts.

However, we're not talking about politics or the news.  That's beyond the scope of this blog.  The one item to address:  Game 6 of the 2019 World Series.

In Game 6, the Washington Nationals almost self-destructed into handing a championship to the Houston Astros.  Trea Turner was called out due to runner's lane interference by umpire Sam Holbrook, causing a frenzy both on the field and in the media.  Manager Dave Martinez was ejected from a World Series game due to this.  Fans all over social media were ready to lynch Holbrook.  The championship of baseball was about to be determined by an umpire's call for interference...until Anthony Rendon hit a ball into the seats and extended the series to Game 7, where the Nationals would ultimately win.

The problem?  The call was CORRECT.

Every person who complained about the call failed to realize that it was the correct call.  The runner cannot run outside of the lane in the last half of the distance from home to first base.  But even after cooler heads prevailed and Thanksgiving approached, Christopher "Mad Dog" Russo and his cohorts continue to harp on the fact that interference should not have been called.

Russo doubled down on his claim by stating that MLB officials were thankful for the Rendon home run because it took the focus off the play in question.  Perhaps the statement was more opinion than fact, and perhaps MLB was prepared to stand by the call if necessary as the correct call, even if it meant the entertainment value of the sport was severely diminished.  But the constant pushing of such an opinion rings of the older pundit who refuses to accept that the opinion is simply wrong.

Maybe this is a microcosm of our society in general.  We dig our heels in when our opinions are challenged and claim that we are allowed to have our own opinions, even when they are wrong.  Our defenses go up because our integrity appears to be challenged.  It's a tired song and dance that speaks to our inability to have a meaningful conversation and progress as a society.

Note this, though:  to progress as a society does not have a correlation to being a stereotypical progressive.  It has nothing to do with the alignment with the left and the right of the political spectrum.  It simply means being respectful to the facts and understanding that nobody will think less of you if you happen to change your opinion.

The issue is that it's easier to just turn off the television or the radio than to actually offer a differing opinion.

The fact of the matter is that we're not here to push an agenda.  We're here to simply awaken people to civil reality and ask that they treat others the way they would wish to be treated.  It has become a difficult task, but one we at OSIP are proud to undertake.

That's why we are here to announce that our blog, The Strike Zone, will be changing.  Namely, the posts will be few and far between.  The success of our podcast, How You Play The Game, has taken more of our attention, and there is only so much time to go around.  Both the blog and the podcast duplicate the same purpose:  for us to discuss issues of sportsmanship in a particular manner.  We may continue to use the blog for some posts from time to time, and we will not be taking our posts down.  But the regular posts on the third Wednesday of each month will cease, and we encourage you to listen to our podcast, which is released on the 1st and 15th of each month.  And like we said above, perhaps we may change our minds later and come back to the blog.  We know you won't think less of us!

Until next time, as we say on the podcast, treat each other with respect.

Last month, we discussed the poor behavior by players and coaches while noting the psychological aspects of the conflict.  Now, in an act of therapy, let's look at the conflict that arises in the mind of the dissenting fan.

Allow me to break whatever the blog equivalent is of the fourth wall is (which barely even applies because I am transitioning from a discussion that does not involve myself to one that tells a personal narrative) as I tell a story about my experience.

One of the more difficult conflicts I experienced this past summer dealt with my personal connection to the New York Yankees as they rose to prominence with unsportsmanlike conduct being used as a bonding catalyst.  Whether it was Aaron Boone's "Savages In The Box" tirade or Brett Gardner's violent attack on the dugout with his bat, the team and the fans rallied around these drive success in the old "us against the world" last stand that tends to be high-risk-high-reward.

Before September even arrived, I found myself heartbroken that my Yankees would act in such a way.  I felt like the Yankees didn't care about me, a diehard fan, because this new methodology created a stronger bond among the players and the larger fan base.  However, I had the ability to take a brief step back and examine the oddity of why I would feel such grief over this.

This grief seemed unfounded.  Nobody died.  Nobody broke up with me.  However, a personal relationship significantly changed, and that's where I discovered the heart of the problem.

As fans, we form a bond with our teams and our athletes to the point where we project ourselves onto them.  We identify with them.  We consider ourselves part of the team.  We even put ourselves in the shoes of our favorite athletes much like how we put ourselves in the shoes of our favorite superheroes.  It's the adult equivalent to when we would pretend to be our favorite athlete in the backyard and play through scenarios of hitting the walk-off home run in Game 7 of the World Series.

So when the Yankees began to act this way, I was heartbroken because I saw myself as part of the team that was doing this.  I felt like I was being personally attacked and offended by the people I loved (where I felt I belonged).  In the fantasy world of my mind, I saw myself as yet another person in that clubhouse who put on the pinstripes each day.  And now I felt like the ostracized member of the team that refused to bond, making me the outcast in the clubhouse, probably soon to be cut, traded, or just let go.

As an aside, keep in mind that the primitive mindset of the athletic culture maintains this type of idiotic bonding as a staple, even when the rest of the culture is adapting to the pampering of spoiled athletes and a more modern approach that differs from how things were in the past 50-plus years.  Frankly, none of these methods, whether primitive or modern, are 100% right and have significant flaws that were never reconciled.  So if a player didn't go along with whatever was happening in the clubhouse, that player was (and still can be) demoralized and outcast like a high school clique.

Regardless, what we can control is how we, the individual fans, can handle this feeling of dissatisfaction.  Unfortunately, it requires us to grow up a little, which is difficult.  But with a short term pain comes a long term gain.

The objective is to disassociate ourselves with our favorite teams.  In turn, this may allow us to disassociate with those who do not share our opinion, much like how players and coaches have to disassociate with a call that goes against them from an umpire (as discussed last month).  We can still be a fan of the team and enjoy watching or following the team, but we can do it in a way that says we are more than just a fan.

There is actually an element of empowering to this.  When we identify with a team to the point of being so invested that this disappointment can occur, we limit ourselves into realizing our full potential.  Each of us, as individuals, are more than just a part of a fan base.  We are beautiful beings with value that goes beyond fandom and identification.  This is the same psychological limiting that occurs when we identify with an organization such as a fraternity/sorority to the point of a volunteer affiliation with no tangible benefit other than just "being a part of something."

You have the ability to see yourself as more than just a blind fan.  You have the ability to proclaim that you are a dissenting fan who roots for a team without endorsing a behavior.  It's quite similar to the method that should be used more in politics, where you can have the opinions that align with a particular ideology without necessarily endorsing a candidate, legislation, or decisions.  You don't have to be grouped into the whole.

You are beautiful.

Let me preface this entire post by saying this is all me.  I don't intend to offend anyone with this post, but I know how sensitive some of these topics can be.  As such, I would ask that anyone who has a problem with these thoughts solely look to me, not this organization.

Also, let me state that I am merely suggesting similarities with these arguments in order to make a point.  I don't want to suggest that the current battles negate any previous battles, nor do I want to diminish the gravitas of our history and the pain felt by so many to this day.  These discussions are meant to spark conversation, never to be divisive.

While surveying the landscape of the ridiculous hatred of MLB umpire Angel Hernandez, I noticed a trend that I probably should have noticed much earlier.  Fans of opposing teams shared a bond in a mutual hatred of Hernandez.  In essence, two fan bases that would normally rip each other to shreds have found a common ground of people to hate rather than each other:  umpires.

It's not quite "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Maybe it's closer to the two major political parties finding common ground in agreeing on patriotism.  Perhaps the better image is of two rival fans arguing with each other at the bar while watching their teams square off against one another, only to find the one place they can agree is on their hatred of the umpires calling the game.

The idea of finding common ground (or at least reducing tension) between rivals is, in theory, positive.  But the method used of finding a new entity to hate together becomes faulty when said entity is innocent.  It would be one thing if political parties came together to hate terrorists, which has occurred in history.  Terrorists, by definition, are not people that are normally positive.  (Even if they are claiming the title of "freedom fighter," the nature of the entire scenario is a bit more conflicted based on the violence.)

Officials, on the other hand, are not the same negative entity.  However, based on the nature of how fan bases can agree upon such hatred, we reach the unfortunate and incorrect conclusion that officials should be the target of such disdain.  This faulty logic is the type of material that leads us, as a group of people (or even a society) down the wrong path in judging a group of people improperly.

As a result, we can simplify this equation.  People hate officials simply because they are officials.  It is compounded by inaccurate interpretations of data rather than fully understanding rules and mechanics.  Thus, it has nothing to do with actual performance nor the content of the character of each person.  The official is hated because he/she wears the stripes/uniform.

If you've successfully completed a high school social studies course about the 20th century, you may have encountered this template before:  people are being judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.  Substitute "skin" with "uniform" and you'll have an accurate description of this situation.

The systematic hatred of officials (simply because they're officials) is a new type of racism.  There, I said it.

Please note this has nothing to do with whether an official is of a particular race/gender/ethnicity/disability/religion/sexual orientation, etc.  It is simply because the person puts on the uniform of an official and goes to work as an official that the hatred is directed at him/her.

Without going through the entire dissertation on the nature of the civil rights movement, I think it's a very basic, safe, and general summary to simply say that African Americans were disliked because they had a different skin color.  People ignorantly perceived and inferred things that led to feeling slighted by the African American community.

Again, it's not an exact "copy and paste" job, but the same is happening with officials because there is an ignorance on the part of the fans.  Rather than taking the time to understand the calls made by the officials based on rules and mechanics, fans just assume the officials are not only wrong, but the sworn enemy.

This ideology is perpetuated by the impressionable behavior of fans everywhere not understanding the consequences of their actions.  That behavior breeds the ignorance.  It is a vicious cycle that continues to create and grow an unnecessary hatred towards a group of people that have done nothing to deserve the hatred.

Now, perhaps you might suggest that a bad call by the official is what causes this to occur.  Not only does MLB data show that their umpires are right more than 97% of the time when calling balls and strikes (which is higher than the 91% of the correct calls made by the computerized strike zone), but the laziness on the part of the fan to understand how and why a call is made is not excused when the officials are right more than 97% of the time.  So, the majority of the "bad calls" are actually correct calls improperly judged by an uneducated fan.

But let's go deeper.  Let's say that the bad call is actually incorrect and falls into that margin that is less than 3%.  There are two psychological elements that are forgotten when fans are in the heat of association with a team.  First, fans will forget that the officials are not actively trying to get the calls wrong.  If that is ever not the case, then the situation is usually a case similar to a bribery or other legal issue, not the content of the character of the official in a vacuum.  Second, fans will associate with their teams so deeply that they will assume that a bad call is a personal attack against each fan, rather than just an incorrectly adjudicated decision that only affects a game and not the realities of life and death.

Put simply, the hatred for officials has grown in the same ignorant manner as general racism, and it is perpetuated in a silent way where the overwhelming majority of people do not have the ability (or the knowledge) to stand up for the officials.

How do we solve this?  Well, if we still have problems with racism in the 21st century, it stands to reason that the problem of racism against officials will also not be eliminated anytime soon.  But we can hope to curb it in the small ways that we can.

Individually, it is incumbent upon all people to look inside their own heart and ask if their view on officials is appropriate.  Further, the question must be asked if each person's behavior towards officials mirrors that view in a proper way.

But it also comes down to similar things that we must do to combat all racism.  For example, we know that certain words/names are very racist in nature.  The same holds true for officials.  Terms such as "ump show" are actually very offensive because they contain the negative connotation that demeans officials who are trying to do the best job they can.

​If we are serious about eliminating the unfair treatment of minorities, officials should be considered here as well.  They are the minority compared to the participants, coaches, and fans, and they are treated the worst.  It's not about being overly sensitive.  It's about eliminating hate.

We hear it all the time, whether it is in the media, from fans, or even coaches and parents yelling it at officials:  one controversial call, and that official blew the game for a team.

News flash:  that's false.

It's easy to pinpoint one call in a game that is the turning point and can decide the outcome of a contest.  But when we do that, we are no longer admiring the proverbial forest for the trees.  We delineate an entire competition down to one moment, which makes for fantastic drama, but seldom represents reality.  (In fact, maybe Hollywood could learn another lesson on how to not poison us moving forward...)

Anytime there is a close call in the later stages of a game, an official has to make a split second decision, which will usually please half of the people present and upset the other half.  It's not a situation that is enviable by most, including the official.  After all, it's not like the official could have avoided trouble if he or she had made the opposite call:  the roles would just be reversed with the upset half now happy and the happy half now upset.

But what happens when replays show us a blown call that can't be changed?  Or what happens when a coach or parent (or even player) sees it one way and the official sees it differently?  The common conclusion is that the official was clearly wrong and is the sole culprit for the outcome of the contest.  However, the truth is the exact opposite.

During the course of any sporting event, a multitude of action will occur that can alter the balance of power defined as who is "winning."  Baseball changes with each pitch.  Football changes with each play from scrimmage.  Tennis changes with each serve.  The list goes on.  Seldom does anyone realize that every single one of these actions can affect the course of a game an equal or greater amount than the call of one official at a moment that is slightly highlighted.  In short, every time a coach tells me the one call I made cost his team the game, I remind myself that the team had ample opportunities to prevent me from even having to make that call.  Although I take responsibility for the call, I'm not the reason that team lost.

Further, there's an even greater notion at stake that people fail to recall in these situations:  great teams overcome bad calls.

The teams that win are the ones that don't stop to argue about the bad calls.  The teams that win are the ones that shrug them off and overcome them to the point where the bad call didn't matter.

When a marathon runner trips during the marathon, does he or she stop to examine the spot where he or she fell?  Does the runner complain to anyone and everyone about how it is the fault of the ground for causing the runner to lose time?  No!  The runner gets up and hurries along to make up for the lost time!

The same goes for great teams and great athletes.

Have you ever had a bad day?  Have you ever had a bad day at work (or, if you're young, at school)?

If the answer is anything other than a resounding "yes," stop reading now because you do not exist.

Now, you may go to an office for your job.  If you don't go to an office, you probably go to some "place" to do a job.  (Even someone self-employed has to go somewhere, even in the house, to do their job.)  Do you know where people involved with sports go when they go to the office?

It may be described in a number of ways:  the field, the stadium, the park, etc.  It all means the same thing.  But if you're a professional athlete or official, your office is literally the playing field.

So if a star athlete has a poor performance, is it not fair to say he or she had a bad day at the office?  Does that give others the right to boo that athlete and make sure he or she knows that fans disapprove of their performance?

Let's put it another way:  if you're having a bad day at the office, how would you feel if people who didn't work at your office came into your office and just verbally abused you over the job you were doing?

If the answer is anything other than a resounding "bad," stop reading now because you do not exist.

The next time you're not happy with a player or an official at any level in any capacity, keep one thing in mind:  that person is trying very hard to do their best.  Your negative critique isn't helping and serves no purpose.