BigSlick, on 18 June 2010 - 12:25 PM, said:
I agree that making assumpions is a terrible precedent, but having the umps get together and then having them say "we know we blew the call, but since we blew it we are going to let it stand" doesn't work for me either.
Imagine if they had huddled up in game 6 and said "Yeah, ARod slapped the ball away, but we didn't call it immediately so Jeter scores and ARod stays at 2nd base."
Except that umpires are already allowed to umpire based on assumptions, for example, in the case of a ground-rule double. The umps can rule that the runner on first would have scored. They choose to never do this, but they can. So umpiring based on assumptions is not really "setting a precedent" in and of itself.
Personally, I think they did as close to the right thing as they could have under the circumstances. You can't penalize the defensive team for not making the throw to first, as the initial ruling on the field eliminated the necessity for the throw. So you need to call Betancourt out as if the catch was made. But you can make assumptions about where Aviles would have ended up had the play initially been called correctly and the out was made on a throw to first. The Astros gets the presumptive out, the Royals get the presumptive advancement of the runner, and nobody really loses. I like how they handled it, aside from botching the initial call, obviously.