Like the anonymously invented law that the Heisman Trophy winner has to come from a national championship contender...
Like the suddenly ascendant notion that the Rookie of the Year must perform for a playoff team...
Like the unwritten rule that you don't bunt to break up a no-hitter when your team is down 2-0...
Like the apparent acceptance that there won't be a traveling violation call if you're taking a layup...
...comes another orphan rule, devoid of known parentage, bereft of logic, indefensible beyond the circular reasoning that it exists because it has existed.
It's the latest kerfuffle around Cam Newton's claim that he was told he didn't get a roughing the passer call because he hasn't achieved sufficient status.
We heard for years that umpires afforded extra dispensation on the outside corner for Tom Glavine because he was a great pitcher.
We heard general acceptance of the claim that Michael Jordan got away with more malfeasance than others on the basketball court because he's the Greatest of All Time.
This is evidently accepted wisdom, except for one thing: there's nothing wise about it.
Why should the best players get the benefit of the doubt? Don't lesser players need it most? Who decides when this new status kicks in? Is there some pre-approved matrix of performance and tenure that arbiters consult?
It's all just more nonsense that sometimes serves as gravity in the bizarre sports universe. If your team wants to subscribe to these fabricated truths, it should knock itself out. But my team is bunting against a tough pitcher down 2-0.
No comments:
Post a Comment