Has Controversy Really Plagued The World Series?

So, I wake up this morning to a front page Yahoo story about the umpiring in the World Series. The title of the story is "Controversial Plays Plague World Series."

That was surprising. I do get there have been three questionable calls in the two World Series games. Now, I can see why people may have a beef with the umpiring, but all three controversial calls can be explained.

The first one, of course, came in game one, where almost everyone in the Rays dugout wanted a balk called on Cole Hamels. I can understand the Rays being upset about a balk not being called, but it was Carlos Pena who left on first move. Hamels never really had his right foot go towards home plate otherwise it would have been a balk.

So, instead of having his right foot go towards him it went towards first base and made throw to Ryan Howard at first who then threw to second where Pena was called out on a close play. The play was close, but of course Fox likes to replay close plays and it clearly showed that Hamels never made a move towards the plate.

In game two, there were two what could be construed as controversial plays. The first one was on a close pitch by Brett Myers to Rocco Baldelli. Baldelli tried checking his swing on a full count pitch, home plate umpire Kerwin Danley looked like he was going to ring up Baldelli on the check swing and almost punched Baldelli out himself.

However, Danley had second thoughts so instead of calling Baldelli out on the check swing he appealed to the first base umpire who said no swing and therefore Baldelli got on base instead of being struck out.

Yes, this was an interesting call to say the least because Danley looked like he was going to ring up Baldelli. The issue was did Baldelli swing or not in this case he did go around with his swing and should have been called out. There's no denying that part it was a missed call.

The issue I have with it is that how many check swings where a player has clearly gone around have been appealed ruled that the player was able to check their swing? It happens. It's part of the game. There is no surprise there and that's what people need to get over.

Could it have been possible that Danley just wanted to point towards the first base umpire but that his fist was closed? So, at the time so it looked like he was ringing Baldelli up. Once Danley realized what he had done that is why he pointed at the first base umpire immediately to get the appeal.

The second controversial play happened with Jimmy Rollins and Danley behind the plate as well. Carlos Ruiz of the Phillies lead off the inning with a double off of David Price.

The next batter of course is Jimmy Rollins, who's been a deep funk in the playoffs. Rollins gets grazed with a pitch, which barely touched the jersey of Rollins. Instead of having 1st and 2nd with no outs in the inning, Danley ruled that it was not a hit by pitch. 

It's a curious call because 90 percent of the time you'll see an umpire make the call and award the batter first base. This is one of the 10 percent of the time that an umpire would not allow for the batter to go to first base. Here's the reason Danley felt like Rollins did not make enough of an effort to get out of the way of the pitch.

Sure, Rollins turned away from the pitch and it grazed his jersey, but if he has time to turn away, he has time to get out the pitches way and that is why Rollins even though he was upset with the call didn't argue much after the call. He knew that he didn't make that effort to get out of the way.

So, whether the media will like to admit it or not the plays that are supposedly plaguing the World Series can be explained. Whether it makes sense to the media, who knows? The media are the ones that like to make stories out of nothing and this is just another example of the media attempting to do that.