agree. You don't change the way you call them based upon a pitcher's no-hitter. If the pitches were clearly balls, then yes, I agree. However, two of those pitches were borderline....and IMO, you give the benefit of the doubt to the pitcher. In today's game, it happens all the time. Don't tell me that Greg Maddux doesn't get a more liberal zone simply because he's Greg Maddux. I suppose you can argue whether that's right or wrong, but it happens all the time. In the NBA, certain stars are given more leniency when it comes to fouls. I'm sure 35 years ago was no different. Each ump had his own strike zone and calls were just as subjective as today. Probably 75% of umps today would have given Pappas a strikeout. maybe so, maybe not. That doesn't make it right. If it's borderline (definition of borderline: "can go either way"), you give it to the pitcher in that case. It's not a matter of right or wrong. If it's clearly a ball, then you call it a ball, but that was not the case in 2 of those balls. And if Froemming calls it a strike and Pappas gets the perfect game, then he makes history, not Froemming. But by virtue of the fact that he called it a ball, Froemming will be forever remembered. it's ridiculous to think that a relatively new ump had an ulterior motive and spearheaded a conspiracy to rob pappas of a perfect game. froemming thought those pitches were balls, and like you said, it's a human game. i don't think he missed the calls, others might. it wouldn't be the first time someone disagreed with an ump.