This Just In: Chase Daniel's Mother Is Rooting For Him

Tonight's matchup of Missouri and Northwestern in the Valero Alamo Bowl was a very good game--a 30-23 overtime win by Mizzou. However, a few things in the ESPN telecast marred what should have been a purely entertaining contest:

First off, play-by-play man Ron Franklin was dreadful during most of the broadcast. He had countless errors identifying players, was way behind in calling the game, and said things like "it's a turnover and it'll be 4th down." Of course, you can't have a turnover AND 4th down. Franklin is normally better than this, but tonight was definitely a bad night for him.

The bigger problem was the constant fixation the director had for showing the family of Missouri QB Chase Daniel. During the final two minutes of regulation and the overtime, ESPN showed Daniel's family no fewer than a dozen times...including when Daniel wasn't on the field at all.

Not only is showing a player or coach's family repeatedly during a game become a broadcasting cliche, but it's also completely unnewsworthy. Is it remotely interesting that Daniel's family was rooting for him? Do we need to see that? Do we need to see it more than 10 times?

Here is what the audience was treated to, almost between every play in the final 2 minutes of regulation and the overtime:

When Northwestern had the ball, trying to get in position to win the game in regulation: Daniel's family cheering when the Missouri defense forced a punt.

When Missouri got the ball back and drove down the field for a potential game-winning field goal at the end of regulation: Daniel's family nervous and excited.

When Missouri's field goal kicker missed the field goal at the end of regulation: Daniel's family shocked and in anguish (what was funny is that other people near them were cheering initially, thinking the field goal was good).

When Missouri scored the go-ahead touchdown in OT on a pass from Daniel: Daniel's family celebrating (another funny thing was his mother yelling "Shit!" when Daniels got hit as he threw).

Is this getting old yet? I'm sure it did for anyone not related to Chase Daniel who happened to be watching the game.

Also, what about the other players' families? Are they not rooting for their kids? In this case, was there no one from Northwestern's team worth showing? In my opinion, it's in very poor taste for a telecast to focus on one player's family and ignore all of the others--especially in a college game. It's as if the director is saying, "fuck the other players and their families--we only care about Chase Daniel."

Perhaps it's too much to ask, but could television sports producers and directors focus more on the game on the field, and less on the stuff off of it? Please?

I won't hold my breath.

You Probably Know More Than An ESPN Analyst

The adoption and use of replay in the NFL was supposed to help end controversies by giving officials a tool by which they could correct errors. Presumably, the types of errors that instant replay was designed to correct were the ones that came on big calls that potentially change the outcome of a game.

Such a play occurred in the Steelers/Ravens game. Late in the game (final minute) and with the Steelers trailing 9-6, QB Ben Roethlisberger hit Santonio Holmes with a pass at the goal line. Holmes was falling out of the end zone as he caught the ball. The ruling on the field was that the ball did not cross the plane of the goal line, which would have made it 4th down and Goal from a couple of inches. Of course, the play was reviewed, and subsequently overturned and the Steelers were given a touchdown on the play. Pittsburgh went on to win 13-9. (You can see the play here).

Did the official make the right call in overturning the call on the field? This was an excruciatingly close play, so people will have reasonable opinions on both sides of the issue. However, you would not have found those on ESPN right after the game--you would have found people who are paid to cover and comment on NFL games who seem to be ignorant of the rules!

ESPN calls its NFL segment on SportsCenter "The Blitz," and our cast of characters includes Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Trent Dilfer, and John Saunders. Here is a transcript of what happened on SportsCenter at approximately 7:50pm with my comments included.

Chris Berman (to Tom Jackson): The ref said "two feet were in the end zone but the ball..."

Tom Jackson: I could tell his feet were in bounds; I saw why the referee (sic) ruled that the ball might have been a couple of inches outside the end zone, because you can see right there the possibility that it never crossed the plane of the end zone, which stretches--as we all know--to infinity.

I love when analysts pull out the "plane of the end zone stretches to infinity" line without knowing what the hell they're talking about. Even if the plane of the end zone goes to "infinity and beyond," that doesn't apply here. What applies is simply this: did any part of the ball cross the goal line?

CB: The ball just has to break the plane...how close it is...

TJ: Since they called it outside the end zone initially, there is some change of call that took place. They either ruled that they made a mistake and the ball is in the end zone, or the rule is all that has to be down are your feet in the end zone. I would like to know which is the case.

I can say, with 100% certainty, that the rule does not state that all you have to do is have two feet down in the end zone. The rule for a touchdown is that a player must have possession of the ball with any part of the ball crossing the goal line. I would bet my last nine Grease Trading Cards on it. Thankfully, one person on the NFL set has a clue:

Trent Dilfer: My understanding is there has to be possession of the football and the ball has to cross the goal line. I talked to Mike Pereira, the head of officials, and that's why the ruling was overturned.

TJ: But then it's a change from what was stated on the field. (laughs)

Isn't every reversal a change from what was "stated on the field?" If Brandon Marshall makes what appears to be a diving catch and it is called that way on the field, and the play is challenged and overturned, wouldn't that be a "change from what was stated on the field?" And a correct one?

It's sad that people who are paid to watch and make meaningful comment on NFL games seem to know very little about the rules. Tom Jackson was a player for the Denver Broncos. He's been on ESPN for like 100 years. He should know better. I don't know if Jackson criticized Donovan McNabb about McNabb's famous lack of knowledge concerning ties and overtime, but if he did, Jackson should call Donovan and apologize.

Now the really dumb part:

John Saunders: Don't you feel the NFL in many ways complicates their (sic) own rules? Quite simply put, if I'm on the sidelines and my two feet are in bounds and I catch the ball, it's a catch. So if my two feet are in the end zone and I catch the ball, that should be a touchdown. It should be that simple.

TJ: It certainly would simplify things.

Simple? It already is simple! Saunders seems to have absolutely no understanding of football. Seriously. To use Saunders's shitty example, of course if you get two feet down on the sidelines it's a catch. But that's not what's in question here--it's the placement of the ball. If you make a catch on the sidelines, the ball is spotted not where your feet are, but where the ball is when either a)your knee hits, or b)you go out of bounds. The significance of having two feet down is merely to determine possession--the spot of the ball has nothing to do with your feet.

The same is true for the end zone. The receiver's feet have nothing to do with the spot. If the receiver has the ball and any part of the ball crosses the goal line--touchdown. Going back to the original play in question (do you remember that?), after consulting instant replay, the referee apparently ruled that Holmes obtained possession of the ball (i.e. controlling the ball with two feet down) with some part of the ball over the goal line. Pretty simple. Was it a good call? Based on the above, I think so.

Perhaps ESPN should make knowledge of the NFL Rulebook mandatory for pretending to be an expert.

Fox Trax Strikes Out

I'm watching Game 2 of the World Series last night and Fox Network is using something they call "Fox Trax" which is a graphic showing where the pitch was located versus the strike zone. Unfortunately, every time they show it, it was fucking wrong! I want to know where the pitch was located when it crossed home plate - NOT WHERE THE CATCHER CAUGHT IT, you fucktards!

ESPN's Gamecast and MLB.com's GameDay online modules show you where the pitch was located as it crossed home plate, i.e. in relation to the batter. Fox is showing me where is the pitch was located when the catcher catches it. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The world is watching the game and seeing batters getting called strike three's, but according to Fox, the pitches are no where near the strike zone.

Come on, Fox! Are you rusty since TBS carried the majority of the earlier playoff games this year? Are you just that freaking lazy? Get off your asses and do the job you're fucking supposed to do!

Sunday, Monday, Happy Days!

According to Kirk Herbstreit of ESPN, Marvin Harrison should just pack up and go home to Philly. Appearing as a guest host on the Tirico and Van Pelt Show on ESPN Radio today, Kirk had this to say during a recap of the Colts "comeback"versus the Texans yesterday:

"Marvin Harrison has jumped the shark."

I know that several people at ESPN have been quoted this year stating that Marvin is done, as noted previously in this blog, as well as a local so-called columnist for the Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly.

I will admit that at 36 years old, Marvin is not the receiver he was in his prime. However, I am not ready to send Marvin walking either. Marvin is still a great possession receiver and can still beat defenders downfield as evidenced yesterday when he had a sure touchdown if Peyton had only thrown the ball better.

He has lost a step, no doubt, but he is also still recovering from knee surgery. Marvin still draws the top defenders many times, so getting open deep will force him to either run better routes or shorter routes.

Marvin's numbers ARE down this year, but they are on par with his numbers from last year prior to his injury.

2008 - 4 games, 17 receptions, 164 yards, 1TD, 1 fumble lost.

2007 - 4 games, 17 receptions, 231 yards, 1 TD, 0 fumbles.

The 17 receptions this year is tied for second for Colts receivers with Anthony Gonzalez.

The Colts also have Reggie Wayne, Anthony Gonzalez and Dallas Clark on the roster. Also, Peyton has not helped matters by under throwing passes, passing to Marvin while he's well-covered, or passes that will get him decapitated. I have also seen Marvin open and then Peyton throw to another receiver.

The team as a whole has been playing like crap. Peyton is still recovering from his knee surgery and the O-line is still a work in progress. When the team finally starts firing on all cylinders and Marvin is left out of the offense, then we can start debating whether he has "jumped the shark" or not.

Marvin will not go to the Pro Bowl this year, but when I need a catch on 3rd or 4th down, Marvin is still the receiver I would look to go to first.

Comeback Aftermath

If you watched the Colts' 31-27 victory over the Texans on Sunday, you witnessed a great and stunning comeback by the Colts. As wonderful as the comeback was (at least, for a Colts fan), there are some issues with how it is being described.

First off, a common way the Colts' comeback is described by sports media is to say that Houston blew a 17-point lead in the final 4:10, as if the Colts got the ball down 17 with that little time remaining. That's a bit misleading. The Texans scored their final touchdown with 8:18 left in the 4th; on the ensuing possession, the Colts took just more than 4 minutes to score a TD to make it 27-17. So the Colts had 8+ minutes to come back--still a very impressive (and unlikely) comeback, but not quite as madcap as only having 4 minutes to do it.

Secondly, some people seem to have not watched what happened in the game. For example, Tom Jackson, ESPN football analyst, said that the reason the Colts came back is "they have #18. He's the guy that sparked this comeback." Granted, Peyton Manning did his part in the victory--he led the drive to cut the lead to 27-17, and he threw the pass that put the Colts up 31-27 on Reggie Wayne's circus catch. But I didn't see Peyton on the field playing defense and forcing the Texans into 3 turnovers in the final 4 minutes. As great as this comeback was, I expect that Peyton will probably get more credit than he deserves from the media.

But this was a team win for the Colts that was helped out by dumb decisions by the Texans. The defense, which had been pretty lousy all day in giving up 27 points, made big plays to get the ball back. The Texans helped, and not just Sage Rosenfels and his spinning fumble-ruski. Houston's play selection late in the game was very suspect: after the Colts made it 27-24, the Texans still could have killed enough of the clock by running the ball and making the Colts burn their final time out. Instead, the Texans threw incomplete on 2nd down, which stopped the clock and saved the Colts time out. It also seemed to make Houston more desperate to make a first down, so instead of running on 3rd down, the Texans tried to pass, which led to the sack/fumble and the Colts taking over on the Houston 20.

As for the Colts offense, they didn't play well most of the day, but still put a drive together to make it 27-17 when all looked lost. And then they executed when the defense got the ball back with a chance to win the game. Again, this was a team win--snatched from what would have been a team loss. Many members of the media will ignore this and instead focus on Manning.

Oh, yeah: finally, this also from Tom Jackson on Sunday night's SportsCenter: "That's the third time this season that we've looked at the stat sheet and wondered how the Colts won a game."

Really? The Colts are now 2-2 after this win. Maybe Tom Jackson can see into the future.

Why Kornheiser Sucks

It's week 4 of the NFL season, yet Tony Kornheiser has somehow gone unscathed on this blog. You know Tony Kornheiser, right? He's the extra guy in the Monday Night Football booth on ESPN, joining Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski.

It's pretty much understood that anyone who pays attention to such things thinks Kornheiser sucks (who would actually pay attention to such things?). In his two-plus seasons of being the third wheel in the MNF booth, Kornheiser has told unfunny and pointless jokes, been confused about the game he was watching, and has not understood how real play-by-play people get and use background information for the game.

Tonight's Kornheiser moment involves the third example. In the first quarter of the Ravens/Steelers game, Kornheiser tried to interject some background info about Steelers rookie running back Rashard Mendenhall by saying, "I think this is right--Mendenhall is the first running back taken in the first round by the Steelers in something like 19 years."

This statement is correct--I knew without having to look it up. Why did I know? Because as he was finishing the sentence, the ESPN on-screen graphic showed the exact same statistic.

Normally, not much of an issue, except the same thing happened last week during the Chargers/Jets game: after Favre threw his first touchdown pass, Kornheiser threw this in: "I don't want to get this wrong, but I think that was Favre's 95th touchdown pass of less than 5 yards, which is an NFL record." Again, just as he was finishing the statement, the on-screen graphic showed the same stat.

What to make of this? It seems pretty obvious to me that Kornheiser is too lazy to either a) do this research himself, like he's supposed to do, or b) write everything down in a usable form to quickly and reliably access on the air. I think Kornheiser is cherry-picking his stats from a producer or spotter; basically, that person does all the prep work and Kornheiser just picks one stat and copies it. The tip-off is Kornheiser's preface each time he uses something: if he had done the research himself and prepared relevant notes, he'd know the stat was a good one. I mean, for something like $1.8 million a year, preparation would be the least the fucktard could do, yes?

More Kornheiser fun from the same game: late in the first half, the Steelers faithful voiced their displeasure over the poor offensive showing by booing (not just a few boos--a full chorus). Kornheiser's observation: "Those are boos you're hearing, folks." Ah, great analysis there.

At least he's consistent. And by consistent, I mean a piece of poo.


P.S. And if I hear Chris Berman fucking quote "Maggie May" one more time on ESPN during NFL highlights, I will kill something.

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

An old article from our good friend, Murray Chass (and by good friend, I mean douchebag):

Rays Feeling A Red Sox Rush

By Murray Chass

I love that on a blog entitled "Murray Chass On Baseball," Murray feels it necessary to add a byline to his posts, even though he's the only one who writes for his OWN blog.

By now, you should realize that the Red Sox are going to win the American League East title and finish in first place for a second successive season for the first time since 1916.

Yes, of course--I'm sure you're right.

Or not.

Let me be fair. The main point of this post is not to point out a prediction that Chass got wrong in an article written two weeks ago (though that is fun). There is some other garbage in the article, too. We'll get to that. I am, however, going to make fun of his prediction a little more.

The Tampa Bay Rays have waged a scrappy, valiant fight for first, occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game. It would be nice to have them rewarded for a surprising, stupendous season, but even after beating the Red Sox twice this week they seem to be ready to have Boston overtake them.

For fuck's sake--what a shitty sentence. "...occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game." It's like a five year-old trying to make an argument: "...mom said I could go outside and get some ice cream and climb on a ladder and go over to Harold's house and look at his dad's dirty magazines and watch reruns of Bosom Buddies and then come home and have a cookie."

Okay, maybe it's an argument for someone a little older than five. Maybe six.

And what the fuck does "they seem ready to have Boston overtake them" mean? At the time, the Rays were holding their own against the Red Sox. Perhaps this is what Chass imagined:

Rays clubhouse after a game. Manager Joe Maddon has called his team in for a meeting.

Maddon: "Guys, we've done a great job all year. Our pitching's been great, we've had enough hitting to win games, the younger players have done very well. Now I think we're ready to take that next step--to have Boston overtake us in the standings. We've been waiting for just the right moment, and since we've been in first place since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when we've played a game, I think now is the time. We're ready."

B.J. Upton: "But coach, shouldn't we keep trying to win?"

Maddon: "No, we're ready to have Boston overtake us. That means we have to start losing."

Carlos Pena: "We just beat Boston. We're still in first. We can actually win the division!"

Maddon: "You guys don't get it. We're not just playing for us; we're playing for Murray Chass. And he says we're ready to have Boston overtake us. He's right--we weren't ready in August when we had the big lead. NOW we're ready. So stop winning."

(Maddon leaves room, goes to his office to look at dirty magazines).

By now, you should also realize that the Yankees aren’t going to make the playoffs for the first time since 1993, their 13-year American League record run going down in flames. Unlike the Red Sox, the Yankees haven’t stayed close enough to the Rays to overtake them for the wild card.

No, because the Yankees would have had to overtake the Red Sox for the wild card, not the Rays. The Rays were ahead of the Red Sox at the time.

Chass got it right about the Yankees, but even Anne Frank could see that by the time this article was written.

As the Red Sox and the Yankees have shown, a team can make up a 5½-game deficit in the last month of the season (see 1978).

Fuck the heck? Are you kidding me? We need to go all the way back to 1978 to see an example of a team making up a 5 1/2-game deficit in the final month??? Just because it was the Yankees overtaking the Red Sox? Is that the only fucking time this has happened? Gosh, I can't think of any other time--oh, wait--last goddamn year it happened twice: the Phillies erased a 7-game deficit to overtake the Mets in the final 17 days, while the Rockies won something like 1463 games in a row at the end of the season to make the playoffs (note: I may be exaggerating the number of games the Rockies won in a row, but I'm sure I'm within 1450 of the actual number).

Again, do we really have to go back 30 years for the best example? How about 1987, when the Blue Jays lost seven in a row in the final week to lose the division to the Tigers? How about 1995, when the Angels blew a 9 game division lead and an 11 game lead in the wild card over the final five weeks of the season?

Why does Chass use 1978? Because it involved the Red Sox and Yankees, so therefore it was more meaningful than the other collapses. Presumably, every one cares about the AL East and the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry more than anything else regarding baseball.

I'm using Chass as the example, but he's hardly alone here. Most of the national media ram the Boston/New York thing down our throats all season. When the Red Sox and Yankees play, forget seeing anybody else on Sunday Night Baseball--in fact, the first series they play in a season, ESPN usually shows two out of three games, with the Saturday game being the national game on FOX (assuming it's a weekend series).

This was never more evident than last Sunday night's Yankee Stadium Lovefest on ESPN. Despite neither team being in playoff contention, ESPN chose to air the final game at Yankee Stadium (Yanks/Orioles) rather than a game with playoff implications. Obviously, the network chose to do this because it was the last regular season game at the Stadium. I suppose that makes sense. However, ESPN went way over the top with it. It's true--because of all the championships and the legendary players (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio), Yankee Stadium does have the richest history of any ballpark. It's closing is a huge story. But on a night after a full day of NFL games and some good pennant-race baseball matchups, the lead on SportsCenter was the closing of Yankee Stadium! This, right after the game had aired for 4 hours on the channel! As much as I appreciate baseball history (which is quite a bit), this was unwarranted given the other sports news that happened Sunday.

I get that the Yankees and Red Sox get higher ratings on ESPN, so we'll see them more often. I understand the business of it and the myopic view TV programmers get when making decisions. The one thing that ESPN programmers don't factor in to their decisions is that some of the higher rating for the Red Sox/Yankees is inflated because that's all ESPN ever shows. If ESPN would do a better job of exposing some of the other teams in baseball on a regular basis, that would help fans in other areas of the country get to know those teams. Of course, that doesn't mean that ESPN should show a game between two last place teams just to get them on the air. But a Tampa Bay/Minnesota matchup would have been very appropriate this year, given that they were both at or near the top of their respective divisions all year. However, ESPN is on the east coast, and they want the short term ratings boost. So no small-market teams, and more Yankees/Red Sox.

The rest of the Chass article (yes, I was critiquing an article, remember?) is just a poorly-written look at why Boston would end up in first place. For an article that mentions the Rays in the headline, he hardly talks about them at all. But he does go on to write more about the Yankees, even though the headline seems to indicate the article isn't about them.

It seems that Chass, like many others who cover baseball, just can't see past the Red Sox and Yankees--even when the story of the year is standing right in front him.

Cross the "T" in Idiotic

Last weekend's college football games brought us some dramatic upsets and the usual idiotic drivel from sports commentators of the various sporting networks. One of the hottest discussions from last weekend came from the BYU-Washington game and the controversial ending.

Jake Locker scored the winning touchdown with two seconds remaining in the game and in his excitement flipped the ball over his head and began to celebrate with his teammates. As a result of flipping the ball in the air, Locker received an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for excessive celebration. The 15-yard penalty meant the chip shot extra point that would tie the game was now a 35-yard attempt and subsequently was blocked by BYU and BYU won the game.

Everyone from Huskies coach Tyrone Willingham to seeming evryone at ESPN (Jim Caple, Mark May, Lou Holtz, Kirk Herbstriet, etc) all feel that the refs made the wrong call in penalizing Locker. Granted, Locker did not fire the ball into air in celebration as much as just flipped it into the air. However, the NCAA Rule 9, Section 2, Article 2c states that “throwing the ball high into the air” in celebration is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct subject to a 15-yard penalty.

The ball was thrown into the air and the refs were correct in making the call. Why is it that everyone at ESPN seems to think that the refs were wrong to make a call that they were correct in making? I have seen several sports writers note that all football calls are judgement calls and the refs should have not called this penalty because it was seemingly an innocent flip of the ball. So if I "innocently" bump into a receiver while guarding him, that should not be a pass interference or illegal contact call? If I "innocently" hold a lineman, I should not be called for holding? Of course I'm going to get called, assuming they see it.

I'm curious what everyone would be saying if Locker had done this in the first or second quarter and they ended up losing by the one-point? Would everyone still be up in arms about it? If it is a penalty in the first quarter it should be a penalty on the final play.

Is it a crap rule? The way it is written, yes it is. I understand the NCAA wants decorum and integrity in their players, but flipping a ball into the air is not an excessive celebration. Don't kill the refs for making the correct call, go kill the NCAA rules committee for making a shit rule.

And while your at it, can you kill most of the ESPN college commentators while you're at it?

Dot the "I" In Idiotic

It was a busy weekend, sportswise, with the NFL opening weekend, MLB pennant races getting down to the last couple of weeks, and college football's second weekend. And with having lots of sports on TV comes lots of bad announcing on TV!

Take Ohio St. vs. Ohio U. on Saturday. Ohio State came from behind to win 26-14 in a game in which it was a 33 1/2 point favorite. ESPN sideline reporter Rob Simmelkjaer, when asked if Ohio State's lackluster performance against Ohio was a bad sign for the upcoming Ohio State/USC game next week:

"I don't want to take anything away from Ohio today, but Ohio State played down to the level of its competition. The Buckeyes were horrible today...again, I don't want to take anything away from Ohio, but Ohio State plays down to the level of its competition when it faces bad teams. Against a good team like USC next week, Ohio State always rises to the level of its competition, so I expect the Buckeyes will be ready." (emphasis mine)

You don't want to take anything away from Ohio, huh? Do you think that perhaps not giving them any credit for nearly beating a top 5 team takes anything away from their performance? Is it possible that Ohio had something to do with making it a close game?

Oh, and Ohio State always rises to the level of its competition, eh? Like this game? Or maybe this one?

Yeah, that seems about right.

This Really Happened

Fuck the heck?



This was on the website today at approximately 4pm (it has since been changed).

You think the headline may be a bit in appropriate for the Olympics in Beijing...CHINA??

Fucktards.

Baseball Tonight: Scrubs Edition

There's nothing like preseason football. Watching 4th, 5th, and 6th stringers play one another in a game that doesn't count is quite exciting--if you like meaningless games. I'd prefer the starters and backups on my favorite team not play at all during the preseason. (Actually, it would be even better if there were no such thing as preseason games, but the NFL likes the automatic revenue.)

But isn't it fun to watch scrubs for both teams play each other after the starters play the requisite quarter or two? I get that there are a lot of players fighting for jobs, but it isn't exactly the highest quality football.

So what does this have to do with ESPN's Baseball Tonight? Watching BBTN on Saturday night is like watching NFL preseason in that ESPN is down to its 4th or 5th-string hosts for the program.

Tonight's lineup: Mike Hill, Chris Singleton, and Buster Olney. Singleton and Olney appear pretty regularly on the show, but aren't used as much as John Kruk, Eduardo Perez, and Tim Kurkjian, for example. The Hill/Singleton/Olney lineup is comparable to the Colts having Jared Lorenzen playing QB with Anthony Gonzalez as the #1 WR and Dominic Rhodes as the #1 RB (important note: if the Lorenzen/Gonzalez/Rhodes scenario happens any time after August 28th, riots will ensue in Indianapolis).

Anyway, on tonight's episode of BBTN (10 p.m. EDT edition), Mike Hill was at his 4th-string best. Highlights:

1. In trying to highlight Roberto Clemente's volunteer efforts, Hill could not say the word "humanitarian." Instead of just going forward, he explained that he's "not a good orator."

There are many broadcasters who are probably not good orators. But they are broadcasters, which would indicate that they can handle the English language. At least partially, anyway.

2. In reading Clemente's bio, Hill tried to read the last line, which ended with something like, "humanitarian efforts that went along with his illustrious career." However, "illustrious" came out "ill-us-troy-us," with the accents on "ill" and "troy."

3. Little League World Series highlights: Mexico vs. Curacao. Hill couldn't pronounce Curacao. The sad part was that he tried to sound it out on the air. Chris Singleton said it for him, then preceded to do the highlights for Hill when he couldn't pronounce any of the names.

Look, foreign pronunciations are difficult. And people have off days. But you'd think the Worldwide Leader in Sports would have production meetings and pronunciation guides to help their anchors, not to mention producers whose job it is to get the information to the anchors. My guess is that the producers did their jobs, but Hill just didn't get it. And this isn't the first time Hill has butchered the English language on BBTN.

I think Hill's in trouble when the rosters get cut to 75 players.

John Saunders Has Lost His Brain

Now for the latest ESPN idiocy (seems to be a common theme):

Astros/Cubs on Monday Night Baseball. Gary Thorne, Orel Hershiser, and Steve Phillips are the announcers. Top of the 4th, Geovany Soto hits an inside-the-park home run (not an easy thing to do for a catcher). Replay clearly shows the ball hit the wall in a spot that should have been an automatic home run. Not a big deal--same result, and Thorne et al. note this.

Here's where it gets stupid: Phillips compares that ball to the ball Carlos Delgado hit on Sunday night in the Mets/Yankees game that appeared to hit the foul pole (it was originally ruled a homer, then overturned and ruled a foul ball. You can see the video here, and also see that the ump has admitted his mistake).

The announcers then throw it to John Saunders in the ESPN studio, who shows the Delgado ball and makes the argument that the ball missed the foul pole entirely. Even if this was true, the ball hit the wall first, clearly on the fair side of the line!

So, what Saunders is saying is that if a ball hits the top of the outfield wall and then bounces into foul territory, it's a foul ball. Perhaps this is a new rule! I have some other new rules: 1) If a foul ball hits the top of the wall and bounces into fair territory, it's a fair ball. 2)If a ball hits second base, it's an automatic triple. 3)If you make a shot from behind the potato salad, you get 3 bonus runs.

I Have Seen the 7th Layer of Hell...

...and it's Chris Berman interviewing Joe Morgan on Baseball Tonight.

God, stop playing skee-ball on the boardwalk and call Berman home already. Or at least call him away from the ESPN studios.