Page:America's National Game (1911).djvu/446

 fair dealing is to be extended? We all know the nature of his duties. We know that he must give his decision with lightning-like rapidity. Is it a square deal to dub him "rotten" if he doesn't give our team the close decision every time? Is it? I have stood in the pitcher's box and seen Ross Barnes, while covering second base, take a ball thrown by the catcher, whirl, and with a motion quick as flash apparently put the runner out. Later, I have asked in a low voice :

"Ross, did you put it on him?"

And the answer would come in a whisper, "Not by a yard."

That is one of the commonest tricks of the game. In this case Barnes fooled the umpire. He had fooled me. But down the line there were spectators who had not been fooled. They could see that the runner was safe, and they howled. But was that a square deal? Was it fair play? The umpire believed he was right. I believed him to be right. Those who were in a position to see from an angle impossible to him and to me knew that he was wrong. But he had made the decision according to his best judgment. He couldn't change it. He, and not the spectators, was judge. He was standing at the time back by the catcher's box, and if I, only a few feet away, and watching as closely as possible, could not see the play, it surely was not fair nor square to dub the umpire "rotten" because he couldn't. And so, in behalf of the sport we love, and to the exploitation of which the umpire is absolutely essential; because the future success of the great American national