Saying What We Are Seeing

Literary theorist Stanley Fish illustrates a point about the realities of living in a postmodern world with an anecdote about Bill Klem, the “father of baseball umpires.” Klem’s behind the plate. The pitcher winds up, delivers, and the batter doesn’t swing. Klem is silent for a moment. The batter turns around and asks, “Well, was it a ball or a strike?” Klem replies, “Sonny, it’s nothing until I say it is.”

Fish’s point is that facts don’t exist in reality independent of observation, and recent events in officiating have reminded us that observation is, well, complicated.

Last week (I know–blogs are so timely), University of Washington quarterback rushed for a last-second, game-tying touchdown against BYU. Well, maybe not quite game-tying. Locker, understandably excited to find himself in the end zone, threw the ball into the air after the play, then leapt into a teammates arms. The officials flagged him for an excessive celebration penalty, backing up the PAT 15-yards. What is typically a fait accompli was instead blocked, giving BYU the victory by one. Ought the official have ignored the letter of the law and allowed Locker his, let’s face it, pretty harmless spasm of joy? But then, if a rule isn’t enforced, what’s the point of having the rule? And, while we’re at it, are we comfortable with a rule, enacted by the mostly white higher-ups of the NCAA, that punishes the mostly black (though not in Locker’s case) athlete for, as the rulebook states it, ”attempt(ing) to focus attention upon himself?”

A few days earlier, Major League Baseball, with the approval of the World Umpires Association, instituted a limited form of instant replay to determine disputed boundary calls such as fair or foul balls or fan interference. Along with Questec, a system of grading the performance of the home plate umpire by comparing it to pitch locations digitally tracked by a network of four cameras, many commentators take replay to be unignorable sign that the age of man is soon to end, and with it will go baseball’s folksy charm.

their job is to enforce the rules, but what is the role of an official? They watch games more intensely than any fan, but with no interest in the outcome. Their job is to uphold the rules in the name of fairness, but in asserting their authority, as in the Locker case, they often undermine our sense of fairness. They are looked to by players, coaches, and fans to make sense of the action, but even with their privileged onfield postion, they frequently have no better idea what just happened than casual viewers at home. And to top it off, they’re likely to be usurped by machines any day now.

I think Fish’s anecdote miscasts the official. Refs, umps, and judges aren’t metatextual figures who stand outside of and render judgment on the ongoing reality: they are part of it. They are absurd heroes. They have authority but no power, information but no understanding, commitment but no emotion. They keep vigil, watching what happens without caring, forever scanning the outfield for the Queen’s assassin.