Reflections on the Post’s Survey of Our Sports Town Standing

Phoenix Coyotes Southern California Seahorses NHL Nashville Metros

Game 7 Umpire's Lopsided Zone Is Not to Blame for Rangers' World Series Loss

For those of you out there blaming home plate umpire Jerry Layne for the Rangers' loss in Game 7 of the 2011 World Series, keep reading. You're partially right.

Though you're mostly wrong.

Game 7 of the World Series looked every bit as exciting as Game 6 after the Rangers and Cardinals battled back and forth for the lead in the first inning.

As the contest advanced toward the bottom of the first inning, one of the quieter, yet more routine and mundane elements of the game finally showed its face.

With two outs, none on and World Series MVP David Freese at the plate, Texas starter Matt Harrison threw a first-pitch cutter over the heart of home plate, belt high.

Ball one.

Yes, I am referring to a missed ball/strike call. It happens in every game: Every home plate umpire eventually misses a pitch.

In the ALCS, the Rangers were fortunate to experience a strike zone called by home plate umpire Jeff Nelson. He missed a grand total of two pitches the entire game, an umpiring rarity equivalent to the no-hitter, one walk short of a perfecto.

In the World Series, the Cardinals and Rangers played six games without undue influence from the home plate umpire. Layne was the plate umpire in Game 1 and, except for the question of a ninth inning Beltre foul ball, had no influence on the game whatsoever.

It was not to be in Game 7.

In the bottom of the fifth inning of the contest, the Cardinals loaded the bases, though they shouldn't have.

After a Ryan Theriot groundout to start the frame, Cardinals utility man Allen Craig walked on a 3-1 count.

One problem: Only two of the four called balls to Craig were actually located outside of the strike zone. Balls three and four were located over the heart of the plate and thigh high; they should have been ruled strikes.

OK, one on, no big deal.

Not so fast. The Rangers' troubles didn't end there.

With two outs and the bases now full of Redbirds, Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina stepped to the plate. After three balls and two strikes, all called correctly, Molina faced a 3-2 count in a one-run game.

Every player dreams of a 3-2, two-out at-bat in Game 7 of the World Series. They dream of RBIs and confetti parades.

Umpires dream of 3-2, two-out at-bats in the deciding game of a championship, too. They dream of called third strikes, plays at the plate and, most importantly, getting the big call right.

Molina didn't swing the bat and plate umpire Layne was left in the lurch to call a 3-2 sinker hovering in the pocket of Rangers catcher Mike Napoli's glove somewhere around the outside corner.

Unfortunately, Layne missed the call. It's an awfully pressure-filled, impossible situation to be in, but not everyone gets the assignment to serve as World Series crew chief. Layne will be the first to say he missed it and should have gotten the call right.

In calling ball four to Molina, Craig came in to score from third base. Had the call been correct, the inning would have been over and no runs would have scored.

The Rangers then brought in C.J. Wilson, who promptly drilled Rafael Furcal with a heater. Add another run to the Cardinals' lead, although had Molina's call been correct, the inning would have been over.

As if to add insult to injury, Napoli stepped to the plate in the top of the sixth inning and took a 1-0 sinker for a called first strike. Replays indicate Napoli's strike call was located off the plate, several inches further outside than Molina's ball call, which was, of course, located over the outside corner of home plate.

Would have, should have, could have.

By game's end, plate umpire Jerry Layne had missed 17 calls, 14 of which benefited St. Louis while only three benefited the Rangers.

Some will say the fact that the Cardinals were 8-2 in the last 10 games in which their plate umpire was Layne might have something do with it.

Some will say it all went downhill in the fifth inning after Layne's missed call, and that's why Texas couldn't come back.

Truth be told, it is impossible to tell how much of an effect these variables might have or not have had on Game 7.

Truth be told, the Rangers were only able to muster two runs against St. Louis. Had the Rangers scored at least three runs, the case of blaming the umpire could be made.

But they didn't. And it can't.

Layne's misses were largely confined to the middle innings and didn't explain Carpenter's overall dominance, Kinsler's base-running blunder nor yet another case of Rangers bullpen-itis.

While Layne's strike zone was undoubtedly lopsided in favor of the Cardinals during Game 7, the Rangers lost because St. Louis played a better game and was the better team tonight.

The Rangers came into the game with great energy but could not sustain it for more than an inning.

The Rangers lost Game 7 because they could not beat St. Louis when they needed to.

They lost Game 7 because of history, because the last road team to win a Game 7 was the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates.

They lost Game 7 because they failed to win Game 6 after multiple opportunities and four separate leads they could not keep.

They lost Game 7 because St. Louis had all the momentum, playing at home after a Game 6 miracle.

They lost because they missed out on home-field advantage for the second consecutive year, thanks to a silly rule with a motto of "This time it counts."

Blame their loss on any of these things, just don't blame their Game 7 loss solely on the umpire.

Eastern Conference Chelsea Kalamazoo Outrage Ventura County Fusion

Hockey fighting and the NHL mandatory visor debate

Mixing concerns about player safety with the quasi-legal assistance of fighting in the NHL is like putting marinara sauce on your Cheerios: Both have their virtues, but the combination is really hard to swallow.

We see it in the head-shot debate, as the NHL goes to great lengths to protect player's heads (because the brain is located inside the head, you see) while allowing (and marketing) fighting with rather miniscule repercussions.

We also see it in the latest flare up of concerns about player safety: The Mandatory Visor issue, following that frightening stick to the eye to Philadelphia Flyers captain Chris Pronger on Monday. (For the record, Ian Laperriere isn't sure a visor would have protected Pronger in this instance anyway.)

Flyers GM Paul Holmgren believes in mandatory visors in the NHL. Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke believes in Paul Holmgren, according to Mirtle:

"Visors should be mandatory for all defencemen, at the least," Burke said, adding that blueliners are at "a far greater risk" of being hit in the face by a puck because of all the deflections in front of the net.

"I'd want to hear the GMs out on the larger topic [of everyone having to wear them], but I think I would support Homer."

Both of these NHL executives are have been known to employ a pugilist or two on their rosters, which brings us to one of the major stumbling blocks in this player safety debate: Players that drop the gloves favor playing without a visor; ironically, they believe this is for their own safety.

From the Globe and Mail, Travis Moen of the Montreal Canadiens understands the risks of playing without a visor, and the issues with being a fighting forward that wears one:

While playing against the Ottawa Senators in March of 2010, then-Senator Matt Cullen's skate came up after he was upended behind the net and slashed through Moen's eyelid, eyebrow and forehead.� When he returned to the ice a few weeks and more than 50 stitches later, Moen wore a visor, but the experiment was short-lived.

"I tried it, but it didn't really work for me, it would have taken a lot of getting used to. ? I also think with my role it can get in the way," Moen said in reference to his propensity to occasionally drop the gloves.

And what would Moen, who wore a visor in junior, say if the league were to decide that face shields should be mandatory? "I wouldn't complain about it. It would just be a matter of getting used to it, sometimes they fog up, it makes your helmet heavier, it's just a distraction. But then it would be like that for a lot of guys," he said.

For the Flyers, Jody Shelley doesn't wear a shield, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday that he chooses not to wear a visor for 'ease of fighting.' Other fighters see the lack of eye protection as part of the job, like Tanner Glass back in February:

"In my line of work, it's not really an option," said tough guy Tanner Glass, one of only seven current Canucks to not to wear a visor. "I wouldn't wear one anyway. I'm old school, Don Cherry ? Only Europeans and soft guys wear visors."

While Glass was a having a laugh here, there's no question that in the testosterone-soaked dance that is the hockey fight, wearing a visor is seen as a sign of cowardice. If you wear one, The Code states that you flip your lid.

From Kyle Clifford of the Los Angeles Kings, via the team's website:

And in an era when players are increasingly seeing the value of protecting themselves with visors, it's generally considered protocol for visor-wearing fighters to toss aside their helmets before the fight begins. Of course, not everyone follows the same "rules."

"Everybody has their own thing," Clifford said. "It depends on the situation. Obviously there is respect there. You've got to have respect. Most guys in the league do have respect for the fighting part of it. If you're wearing a visor, usually you will take your helmet off. If you don't, it usually comes off anyway."

Mark Messier traces this tradition back to the late 1970s, when a mandatory visor rule was implemented in amateur hockey: "Because of the shields and full cages, taking the helmets off became a way of showing respect and bravado."

Again, we come to the confluence of opposing forces in the fighting debate: Tradition says a player takes off his helmet and shield before a fight. The NHL doesn't want players with face shields engaging in fights, issuing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for instigating a fight while wearing a visor. Former NHL pugilist Georges Laraque not only wanted to ban players with shields from fighting, but wanted hockey fights to stop when a helmet comes off.

All of this is to say that if the NHL were mandate visors for all players, it will affect hockey fighting in some way.

If the evidence tells us anything, the effect might be to decrease the number of fights we see.

In 2010, The Hockey News found that 65 percent of NHL players younger than 30 wore a visor, whereas only 45 percent of players 30 and older did. In other words, the younger players who came through every level of hockey wearing a visor continued to wear one as pros.

In 2010-11, the NHL's fights per game dropped to their lowest level since 2007 at 0.52. HockeyFights.com currently projects that number will drop again to 0.45 this season; that's creeping closer to the post-lockout pacifism that saw the percentage of fights per game drop to under 30 percent in 2006.

If you don't believe fighting is trending down, then we can at least agree that enforcers are going the way of VHS and PT Cruisers. The modern day fighter is the Travis Moen type, not the Jody Shelley type. The days of visor-less all-punch/no play guys toiling on the fourth line are over; question is, does that reduction in enforcers translate to a changing philosophy on face protection from those players who do fight?

Is there a middle-ground solution? Probably not. Tear-away visors won't work; what's the sense of eye protection if they can be jostled out of place?

If the solution is mandatory visors, then the NHL needs current players to sound off like Brad May did two years ago in the Detroit Free Press:

May is a proponent of everyone wearing one, saying that, "For 15 years I've said that it should be mandatory and should never be the players' decision, because you give us a choice and the chances are we make the wrong one. In saying that, I haven't worn a visor my whole career and I've had no problem with it, either. So I think when it comes down to it we're all men, we should have the choice, but for myself, if they tell me to wear a visor because I have to, then I have no problem with it."

Expanding on the issue, May said, "all I'm saying is, you give me a choice, there's a chance of me making the wrong one. I haven't worn a visor, so I'm a hypocrite. If it was mandatory, then there wouldn't be a decision, there wouldn't be a choice. Obviously when somebody gets hurt because they're not wearing one, now it's like he made the wrong choice. ? That's like saying not wearing a seat belt, you're going to be safer. In some cases that's true. But, seat belts are there for the right reason, as would be visors. But in more cases than not, the visor is going to help, no question."

The majority of the NHLPA's membership prefers personal preference over mandatory visors. It's up to their peers to convince them otherwise.

Other popular stories on Yahoo! Sports:
? Terrell Owens draws no NFL attendance in first public workout since surgery
? Video: Stanford primed for run to BCS title game
? See Patrick Kane's no-look, spin-o-rama assist for Blackhawks

Philadelphia Kixx Puerto Rico Islanders Lancaster Rattlers Wilmington Hammerheads

the year in photos

in 2010, photos change, words not so much.
MLS Superdraft breakdown - you know you’re not getting that here. But every year the draft marks the beginning of a new soccer season. Beyond the MLS hot stove, it means the first USMNT game of the new year is around the corner, with the Gold Cup just [...]

Minnesota Wild Anaheim Ducks Long Island Rough Riders Ocean City Barons

MLS Cup Playoffs 2011: Championship Odds for Each Playoff Team

Here in North America, we are coming down to the wire in the Major League Soccer season, with the Philip J. Anschutz Trophy on everyone's mind.

With the Columbus Crew and FC Dallas eliminated in the wild-card round of the MLS Cup Playoffs, only eight teams remain in the hunt, including the defending cup holders, the Colorado Rapids.

Let's take a look at the teams that are still alive and gauge their chances of lifting the MLS Cup at the Home Depot Center in November.

Begin Slideshow

Laredo Heat Des Moines Menace Detroit Ignition St. Louis Lions

D.C. United poll: Charlie Davies

Read full article >>

New Hampshire Phantoms Montreal Impact Atlanta Silverbacks U23 Tottenham Hotspur

Pass or Fail: Team Canada?s new throwback third jersey

Chris Creamer of Sportslogos broke this jersey leak on Monday, as Team Canada will have a "throwback" sweater for the 2011 World Junior Championships this season.

Hey, here's a handy way to feel ancient: When a logo from the early 1990s can be considered a "throwback," and you realize this is because the early 1990s were 20 years ago. (Sigh.)

The logo itself conjures images of standard-def hockey games on tape delay, with bad CGI scoreboards. We dig it from a kitschy nostalgia perspective; it's like buying an old Winter Olympics shirt for the time-specific style and design.

Also, our friends in Toronto tell us the three Leafs on the stick represent Phil Kessel winning the Richards, Ross and Hart in 2012 (this might not be accurate).

HOWEVER ?

Can we please stop with the symmetrical heritage patterns on logos and hems of these jerseys?

The 2010 Winter Olympic jerseys for Canada used this gimmick, filling the leaf on the front with images of First Nation artwork and iconography. It was well-received, and obviously used to conjure the Wolf Spirit to defeat far superior U.S. teams for double-gold.

But this thing on the hem of the new Canada sweaters? Bleech. From Creamer:

The star of this jersey is the grey pattern designed along the waist of the jersey, it's a muralistic (not a word) representation of Team Canada's junior hockey past, borrowing imagery of previous championship tournaments while including years of noteworthy tournaments in the history of the junior program.

Again, if the majority considers this design to be the star of the jersey ? despite completely clashing with the clean lines of the retro logo ? then we will gladly wave our freak flag for the minority. It's distracting. It looks like a printer cartridge exploded on their pants. In the words of the master thespian Ethan Hawke in "Realty Bites": You look like a doily.

Then again, we're just curmudgeonly jerks. What say you?

Pass or Fail: The retro third jerseys for Canada's National Hockey Team.

Charlotte Eagles Panama City Pirates Midwest Division Arsenal