This may make me even less of a purist, but I think there are more important things than getting the call right. We watch sports for entertainment. Specifically, we watched five long hours last night for the payoff: that moment when one team did something suddenly to push the winning run across the plate. Last night's game ended on a close (reviewable) play; I knew the game was over when the umpire's arms went up with the 'safe' sign. That's the most exciting part of baseball to me. Suppose, after Morneau slid across the plate in the 15th, the umpire went up with the safe sign, but then went over to a little hooded camera by the dugout to make sure he got it right. And he looked for four minutes at every angle of the play. And then he walked back out on the field and announced that after further review, the runner was in fact safe. Talk about anti-climatic. Even if the game had ended this way in the bottom of the 11th (like it should have) it still wouldn't have been as good in my book. We let Dan Uggla make 3 errors and chalk it up to 'part of the game'; let the umps make their errors too.

R-O-B,<br>I couldn't agree more. I felt the same way as I tried to stay awake to see Sherrill. The only thing you're incorrect on is that Navarro scoring wouldn't have ended the game. The AL had the hammer and just for suffering's sake probably would've re-tied it in the bottom half. Replay is long overdue.

I agree... Look at all the over turned in/out calls at 2008 Wimbledon. If the technology had not been used, it would have had a profound impact on the outcomes of many matches.

I agree completely. Every umpire is taught that the most important thing is to get the call right. We have the technology now to get pretty much everything right. But for some reason people don't want to use it. When you watch a game, you see close plays (at a base, home run calls, fair/foul calls, or close strikes and balls) an instant after they happen. Games are already long with batters stepping out of the box and pitchers taking time between pitches. If someone up in the box were to make these calls and call them down, it could be done quickly without extending the game much longer than it already is. You hit the nail on its head. Why would anyone want to keep the human factor in making calls, thus getting some call wrong, just to preserve the game's integrity.

I think the purists would prefer that calls right or wrong be decided on the field at that moment when the action is happening. Did the umps get those wrong...YES, Ian Kinsler was safe. The Dioner Navarro play at the plate looked similar to the winning play with Justin Morneau just BARELY making it before the tag, he may have benefitted from a lot of folks wanting to go home or to bed, Joe Buck was verbally willing Michael Young to deliver in the bottom of the 11th. I think it will take a bad call to go against a marquee player/team in a big stage game. But then again blown calls in major games have happened before, remember the '85 World Series the pitcher covered first on a ground ball to the right and Denkinger blew the call at first and it turned the momentum of the series.

Rob,<br><br>The "integrity" of the game has always been my soap-box with regard to the "fix-is-in" conspiracy theories. Could it be that Bud Sellout wanted the NL to win and directed the umpiring crew to make it happen considering the domination by the AL??<br><br>Regards,<br><br>The NBA's Tim Donaghy and the PART-TIME NFL Referee Crews

After the second blown call, I began to wonder if "the fix was in" for the NL. If the integrity of baseball is to be upheld, then instant replays for close calls is a must! Damn it, Bud Selig & Umpires Association, the technology is here, so GET THE CALLS RIGHT!!!