The Chicago White Sox reached their first World Series since 1959 and now have an opportunity to match their 1917 win. I can’t help but think there is an underlying story to this significant sporting occurrence.Had it not been for a terrible call by the home plate umpire in game two of the series, the Sox would be back in the south side of their Windy City, watching as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim brought home the 2005 American League pennant.The call was over whether a batter was struck out or not after swinging and whiffing on a strike-three pitch. However, a question came up on whether or not the ball touched the ground before reaching the catcher’s glove.According to major league rule, a batter has the right to attempt to run to first base if he is not tagged or thrown out by the catcher immediately after he misses on strike three when the ball grazes the dirt.It appeared that the home plate ump called the batter out and then incorrectly reversed the call when the man safely ran to first base in an effort to sell his side of the story.Many would argue that one of the greatest facets of sport is the constant argument over “What If?”However, in this particular case, technology could have purged this specific game and possibly the series from this list by clearing up this one bad call.I am of course getting at the need for instant replay to remedy the “human aspect” of sports, specifically in baseball.For several years now,Commissioner Bud Selig has been adamantly opposed to this innovation because he says he wants to maintain the tradition of the game. However, the only tradition that is being preserved by upholding the human error aspect of the game is the tradition of falseness.After all, wouldn’t sports be so much better if we could almost entirely eliminate bad officiating and reduce the potential for the team that actually won from not coming out victorious?While every major professional sport but baseball has gone the way of accuracy, for some reason baseball continues to prefer its method of misjudgment. Recognizing the great potential for this device, the National Football League instituted instant replay review all the way back in 1986 before it was dropped in 1992 because team owners felt the delays on calls slowed down the game too much.Six years later though, the owners changed their minds again, realizing that replay was the only sure way of getting every call right when it mattered.The National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association also utilize replay in at least some form in order to ensure that the proper and most fair call is made, so as to not affect the outcome of the game.College football has even caught on. After the NCAA approved experimental usage of video replay in D-I games, nine of the 11 conferences, including the ACC, Big 10, Big 12 and SEC, adopted some form of replay review.There is also a lot of talk about installing some form of replay review into college bowl games, or at least in the national title game.So why then is baseball still so stubborn about moving toward a technologically beneficial modern element of sport?Many say that replay in baseball would come down to reviewing individual pitches, reducing the game to going back and changing balls and strikes. But the movement for instant replay in baseball is for limited use in game-changing events such as fan interference or home runs versus foul balls.Others argue along with Selig that they are just reluctant to change anything about their most archaic and beloved of games.The simple fact is that until review is adopted in baseball, the administrators of the game will continue to fail the sport overall and the fans in the stands and at home will know more than the officials being paid to referee the game.