Sox-
quote:However, NO ONE in the media or even on the several threads here has pointed out Scioscia's mistakes.
2 Points...
Point#1-
Soxnole...Scioscia's biggest mistake was not immediately asking the HP ump to appeal to 3rd base. By the time they did ask him (nearly 10 min later) no ump in the world is going to stab their partner in the back and call him out.
If he would have asked right away, I think he would have gotten the call.
Point#2-
Paul is a MLB catcher for crying out loud...I'm certain he's had enough "experience" (as someone put it) to know whether he caught the ball clean or not. The guy has caught 1000's of pitchers and millions of pitches...I think he qualifies as being an "experienced" catcher whether he's a back-up or not.
Even an MLB catcher can have a brainfart when in a new situation/playoff pressure.etc.
Experience needs to be re-accumulated for each step up the ladder.
Experience needs to be re-accumulated for each step up the ladder.
Tom,
My point is he didn't HAVE a "brainfart" as you so eloquently put it...he caught the darn ball!
The umpire was the one who experienced cranial flatulence...
My point is he didn't HAVE a "brainfart" as you so eloquently put it...he caught the darn ball!
The umpire was the one who experienced cranial flatulence...
There is no question that the catcher could have avoided this whole thing by doing what I have taught my son to do on close calls - and have seen him do time and again.
Catching the low third strike, hold up the glove and wait for the call. If silence from the ump, tag the batter or throw to first.
That said, I still think the ump screwed up badly. I just heard his post-game interview on Jim Rome saying the fist pump is his "third strike mechanic," and that he had done it all game long. Wrong.
Rome pointed out the Molina at-bat, where the horizontal arm-stroke was strike three, and the fist pump came when was tagged out.
The fact that the ump is now trying to claim what is demonstrably unture shows that he knows he screwed up and is trying to excuse it.
Totally agree on the 0-2 pitch. That was a crime. As the ball was on its way to the wall, I remember shaking my head wondering how a major league pitcher in that situation could make that mistake on 0-2.
Catching the low third strike, hold up the glove and wait for the call. If silence from the ump, tag the batter or throw to first.
That said, I still think the ump screwed up badly. I just heard his post-game interview on Jim Rome saying the fist pump is his "third strike mechanic," and that he had done it all game long. Wrong.
Rome pointed out the Molina at-bat, where the horizontal arm-stroke was strike three, and the fist pump came when was tagged out.
The fact that the ump is now trying to claim what is demonstrably unture shows that he knows he screwed up and is trying to excuse it.
Totally agree on the 0-2 pitch. That was a crime. As the ball was on its way to the wall, I remember shaking my head wondering how a major league pitcher in that situation could make that mistake on 0-2.
soxnole:
I can sympathize with you on this one. I'm really impressed with Scioscia's class as evidenced by his behavior during the post game interviews,but your keen observations of his actions during the game are very interesting and astute...certainly they are newsworthy.
How you feel now is how I felt during the Cubs/Bartman episode. As that mess was unfolding I almost instantly recognized that it was Moises Alou's inability to drop the matter quickly and return to left field to finish a very likely Cub victory. He made such a scene that the rest of the team, and in particular, Prior got all wrapped up in it and lost their focus and the rest is deeply etched in Cub history.
I can sympathize with you on this one. I'm really impressed with Scioscia's class as evidenced by his behavior during the post game interviews,but your keen observations of his actions during the game are very interesting and astute...certainly they are newsworthy.
How you feel now is how I felt during the Cubs/Bartman episode. As that mess was unfolding I almost instantly recognized that it was Moises Alou's inability to drop the matter quickly and return to left field to finish a very likely Cub victory. He made such a scene that the rest of the team, and in particular, Prior got all wrapped up in it and lost their focus and the rest is deeply etched in Cub history.
blazer25:
Cranial flatulence? Is that akin to a sneeze? A stinky sneeze?
Cranial flatulence? Is that akin to a sneeze? A stinky sneeze?
Clearly there are a number of things that occured during this play that caused the issue.
I will not go into the "did he catch it or not" issue....that was decided on the field during the play. No amount of 3rd party video or super slo mo is available at that moment so the call stands....
Clearly the mechanic used by the Umpire aided this problem, however, it is an accepted and taught mechanic at pro school. I have not attended pro school, but have attended the short pro clinics. The Hammer to the front call as was used last night is taught as an accepted strike mechanic. Some point, some hammer...I use the hammer for all strike calls. That being said if the ball was not caught, the mechanic we use is a verbal call "strike" followed by "no catch"......
If caught, we are taught to say "Strike", then batters out, pumping the fist repeatedly to demonstrate the out...and not just the strike.
In the 2 man system, that most of us work in, if the ball is not caught, the base umpire will signal with an open palm to assist the UIC to know it was not caught. I assume that this is used in MLB.
My 2 cents.........
I will not go into the "did he catch it or not" issue....that was decided on the field during the play. No amount of 3rd party video or super slo mo is available at that moment so the call stands....
Clearly the mechanic used by the Umpire aided this problem, however, it is an accepted and taught mechanic at pro school. I have not attended pro school, but have attended the short pro clinics. The Hammer to the front call as was used last night is taught as an accepted strike mechanic. Some point, some hammer...I use the hammer for all strike calls. That being said if the ball was not caught, the mechanic we use is a verbal call "strike" followed by "no catch"......
If caught, we are taught to say "Strike", then batters out, pumping the fist repeatedly to demonstrate the out...and not just the strike.
In the 2 man system, that most of us work in, if the ball is not caught, the base umpire will signal with an open palm to assist the UIC to know it was not caught. I assume that this is used in MLB.
My 2 cents.........
piaa_ump, nice post. Talking about the "mechanic" is critical to this game and call. I wonder if some of you get your officials from an Offcials's Directory or do you use an Official's Association? It might be interesting to ask them about their "mechanics" for this call. We get all of our officals be it basketball or baseball from an associaltion. I did talk to two of our umps. They said that in our area, the "mechanic" would have been to point with a stright arm at the swing. The pump or "hammer" would have designated an out. Then again, piaa_ump points out that there might be a vast difference between high school "mechanics" and professional "Mechanics." INTERESTING!
I edited this because I left out one important "mechanic" one of our umps pointed out. VOCAL OVERRIDES ALL ELSE.
I edited this because I left out one important "mechanic" one of our umps pointed out. VOCAL OVERRIDES ALL ELSE.
The umpire indicated the batter was out. As stated earlier it doesn't matter at that point if the ball bounced or was caught on the fly. The batter was out and the umpire second guessed himself and called him save at first.
Two quick points:
How does a umpire make a call on something he or his crew didn't see? This ump wasn't sure he heard the ball hit the ground. How does he call it a trap when it wasn't seen or heard????
A bad call was made and made worse by the umpires not admitting they were wrong.
Two quick points:
How does a umpire make a call on something he or his crew didn't see? This ump wasn't sure he heard the ball hit the ground. How does he call it a trap when it wasn't seen or heard????
A bad call was made and made worse by the umpires not admitting they were wrong.
Ump
You got it right.
Having looked at it plenty of times today, I have strong feelings on the pitch. But regardless:
It was wrong last night in that, if the catcher is to be believed, he never got a verbal from the umpire; and those who believed you make the tag are right, too. Take doubt out of the equation.
You got it right.
Having looked at it plenty of times today, I have strong feelings on the pitch. But regardless:
It was wrong last night in that, if the catcher is to be believed, he never got a verbal from the umpire; and those who believed you make the tag are right, too. Take doubt out of the equation.
Wow, all of these posts about baseball controversy. Isn't this what makes the game great?
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my observations.
The motions or "mechanics" that umpires employ to indicate "stirke" or "out" while working the plate are as varied as the umpires themselves. I have to admit though that I've never worked with or seen (at any level) a plate umpire use two distinctly different right arm motions, separated by 2 or 3 seconds, to indicate the same strike. What I saw from Mr. Eddings was his arm extended to the right (indicating "strike") then, 2 or 3 seconds later, a little fist pump in front of his chest. (indicating "out")
Given this same scenario I would not have needed to give any indication of a strike. This was a full swing and follow through. Everyone knew it was an attempt to hit the ball. No check swing or anything of that nature. The fact that Mr. Eddings or any umpire wishes to give that signal
is fine, just not necessary. At this point if I judge that the ball was caught in flight by the catcher I would have given the little fist pump to indicate the out. If the batter decides to run to first base after I've determined that he's out, I would verbally state "batter is out". Mr. Eddings didn't say that.
If I judge that the ball hit the ground I would verbally state "no catch" and play would continue. Mr. Eddings didn't say that either.
At that point, Mr. Eddings was in big trouble because the ball was either caught or not caught, in his judgement, and he hadn't ruled either way.
It seems that when the batter took off for first base some doubt entered Mr. Eddings mind as to whether the ball was caught in flight or hit the ground so he allowed the play to continue. (Remember, he never said "no catch") That wasn't necessarily wrong. After the play ended his only option was to ask his fellow umpires if they saw the ball hit the ground. If they didn't or weren't sure he calls the batter out. If one of them was certain that the ball hit the ground then call the batter safe.
Now, I'm not saying what the base umpires did or didn't contribute to that discussion because I don't know. Only that one of them said he was screened so he wasn't sure. I'm just suggesting how Mr. Eddings could have proceeded.
As to whether the catcher actually did or did't catch the ball. Well, it's amazing that with the benefit of instant replay (fast, slow or in between) and reading all the posts here that there is still no definitive consensus. My observation is that the web of the glove was on the ground and the ball hit inside the web causing the ball to bounce slightly upward where it was secured by the catcher. But hey, that's just me.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my observations.
The motions or "mechanics" that umpires employ to indicate "stirke" or "out" while working the plate are as varied as the umpires themselves. I have to admit though that I've never worked with or seen (at any level) a plate umpire use two distinctly different right arm motions, separated by 2 or 3 seconds, to indicate the same strike. What I saw from Mr. Eddings was his arm extended to the right (indicating "strike") then, 2 or 3 seconds later, a little fist pump in front of his chest. (indicating "out")
Given this same scenario I would not have needed to give any indication of a strike. This was a full swing and follow through. Everyone knew it was an attempt to hit the ball. No check swing or anything of that nature. The fact that Mr. Eddings or any umpire wishes to give that signal
is fine, just not necessary. At this point if I judge that the ball was caught in flight by the catcher I would have given the little fist pump to indicate the out. If the batter decides to run to first base after I've determined that he's out, I would verbally state "batter is out". Mr. Eddings didn't say that.
If I judge that the ball hit the ground I would verbally state "no catch" and play would continue. Mr. Eddings didn't say that either.
At that point, Mr. Eddings was in big trouble because the ball was either caught or not caught, in his judgement, and he hadn't ruled either way.
It seems that when the batter took off for first base some doubt entered Mr. Eddings mind as to whether the ball was caught in flight or hit the ground so he allowed the play to continue. (Remember, he never said "no catch") That wasn't necessarily wrong. After the play ended his only option was to ask his fellow umpires if they saw the ball hit the ground. If they didn't or weren't sure he calls the batter out. If one of them was certain that the ball hit the ground then call the batter safe.
Now, I'm not saying what the base umpires did or didn't contribute to that discussion because I don't know. Only that one of them said he was screened so he wasn't sure. I'm just suggesting how Mr. Eddings could have proceeded.
As to whether the catcher actually did or did't catch the ball. Well, it's amazing that with the benefit of instant replay (fast, slow or in between) and reading all the posts here that there is still no definitive consensus. My observation is that the web of the glove was on the ground and the ball hit inside the web causing the ball to bounce slightly upward where it was secured by the catcher. But hey, that's just me.
The talking media heads are unbelievable.
There is next to no chance that that ball was caught.
The latest version on FOX is ridiculous
I want to see them demonstrate how that ball was caught, with a catchers mitt, no better yet, Paul's catcher's mitt. The physics of the wrist angle the catcher had at the time and the location of the webbing on a catchers mitt makes it next to impossible for the ball to be caught. The webbing doesn't stick out far enough to be under the ball when it changed direction.
Of course, they want controversy rather than truth.
Or, maybe they are covering Joe Buck's ***.
There is next to no chance that that ball was caught.
The latest version on FOX is ridiculous
I want to see them demonstrate how that ball was caught, with a catchers mitt, no better yet, Paul's catcher's mitt. The physics of the wrist angle the catcher had at the time and the location of the webbing on a catchers mitt makes it next to impossible for the ball to be caught. The webbing doesn't stick out far enough to be under the ball when it changed direction.
Of course, they want controversy rather than truth.
Or, maybe they are covering Joe Buck's ***.
quote:...My observation is that the web of the glove was on the ground and the ball hit inside the web causing the ball to bounce slightly upward where it was secured by the catcher. But hey, that's just me.
We were typing at the same time.
I disagree. The web won't be on the ground in the area of the bounce.
And, the bounce went directly into the pocket. A tight fit. Not a loose catch which it would have to be IF it hit the leather of the web and bounced up.
Again, please get a catchers mitt and try this.
Linear,
I respectfully submit to you that we agree to disagree.
I respectfully submit to you that we agree to disagree.
He caught it... that's what I saw. And nobody will ever convince me different. But hey, I was at home, not behind the plate last night.
People will see what they want to see, and really move on, it's in the past. On to game 3!
People will see what they want to see, and really move on, it's in the past. On to game 3!
I'd like to add two points to this discussion:
First, Pierzynski (who makes $2,250,000/year, by the way), played some very smart 'heads-up' ball, and got away with it -- just like the catcher who is a great 'framer' or the outfielder that is able turn a trap into an out. It's part of the game and it goes both ways.
Second - regardless of the situation, ML pitchers get paid for the pitch after the big play as much as for anything else -- Escobar served up a blue plate special to Crede that he ate with fries and a milkshake.
I think that Mike Scioscia said it best after the game. "There's a lot of focus on that play, but we didn't play to a high enough level to win the ball game. That's the bottom line."
First, Pierzynski (who makes $2,250,000/year, by the way), played some very smart 'heads-up' ball, and got away with it -- just like the catcher who is a great 'framer' or the outfielder that is able turn a trap into an out. It's part of the game and it goes both ways.
Second - regardless of the situation, ML pitchers get paid for the pitch after the big play as much as for anything else -- Escobar served up a blue plate special to Crede that he ate with fries and a milkshake.
I think that Mike Scioscia said it best after the game. "There's a lot of focus on that play, but we didn't play to a high enough level to win the ball game. That's the bottom line."
Glove Man:
You're right...its in the past...move on.
UrKillingMe Blue:
Good summation.
You're right...its in the past...move on.
UrKillingMe Blue:
Good summation.
Respectfully, I think if people want to "move on" they will, don't you?
I think a lot of potential posters may be reading this for the first time and
have a different slant or perspective on the subject and see "move on" and therefore not respond.
If this thread has become boring or redundant for anyone-YOU have the right
to move on. JMO.
I think a lot of potential posters may be reading this for the first time and
have a different slant or perspective on the subject and see "move on" and therefore not respond.
If this thread has become boring or redundant for anyone-YOU have the right
to move on. JMO.
I had another comment and a question....
I find the most puzzling twist in the bizarre play is Piersynski's accounting on the airwaves....Seems he heard two sounds... a "boom boom" which he says he thinks was the ball hitting the ground and then the glove LOL
But then, when asked if he heard Mr. Eddings say "no catch" or "You're out" he claims the place was so noisy he couldn't hear anything??
Splain that one! LOL
The question I had was regarding the rule about being able to get to the dugout steps. Can anyone tell us why the play isn't done when you leave the batter's box? Just curious if anyone knows.
I find the most puzzling twist in the bizarre play is Piersynski's accounting on the airwaves....Seems he heard two sounds... a "boom boom" which he says he thinks was the ball hitting the ground and then the glove LOL
But then, when asked if he heard Mr. Eddings say "no catch" or "You're out" he claims the place was so noisy he couldn't hear anything??
Splain that one! LOL
The question I had was regarding the rule about being able to get to the dugout steps. Can anyone tell us why the play isn't done when you leave the batter's box? Just curious if anyone knows.
Chill,
I'm sure the decible reading went off the chart after he was called out....I mean after the called strike, versus when the pitch crossed the plate.
I'm sure the decible reading went off the chart after he was called out....I mean after the called strike, versus when the pitch crossed the plate.
Should Josh Paul have tagged AJ - YUP - but, he didn't need to, since he caught the ball - AND HE KNEW IT!! The bouncing action we see on the replays is the ball boucing IN THE WEB of the glove.
ESPN showed a replay of the Ump's calls on strike 3 all night...his mechanic was the same on all of them - right hand pointing out towards first base indicating strike 3, and the short vertical fist pump indicated YER OUT!! Ump blew it. Why else would he make 2 distinct actions??
ESPN showed a replay of the Ump's calls on strike 3 all night...his mechanic was the same on all of them - right hand pointing out towards first base indicating strike 3, and the short vertical fist pump indicated YER OUT!! Ump blew it. Why else would he make 2 distinct actions??
quote:The bouncing action we see on the replays is the ball boucing IN THE WEB of the glove...
Next to impossible.
The glove was in a downward motion with the pocket still open when the ball contacted the mitt. Please substantiate you claim and explain why it is impossible for the ball to deflect given these circumstances.
Also, is an umpire supposed to call what he cannot see. From where the ball was caught there is no way the umpire could have seen the ball hit the ground even if it did(which it did not).
One last item. So the ump bases his judgement in part on the "path" of the ball and the actions of a player (batter or catcher). Why would the umpire base his judgement on the player who has the worst view of the play (catch)? The batter is focusing on the pitch out in front and wouldn't see the ball behind him. The catcher is also focusing on the incoming pitch and follows it all the way into his mitt. If I were going to base my call on one of these players actions it would be the catcher.
Also, is an umpire supposed to call what he cannot see. From where the ball was caught there is no way the umpire could have seen the ball hit the ground even if it did(which it did not).
One last item. So the ump bases his judgement in part on the "path" of the ball and the actions of a player (batter or catcher). Why would the umpire base his judgement on the player who has the worst view of the play (catch)? The batter is focusing on the pitch out in front and wouldn't see the ball behind him. The catcher is also focusing on the incoming pitch and follows it all the way into his mitt. If I were going to base my call on one of these players actions it would be the catcher.
don't give AJ too much credit, he had no way of knowing if it was caught or not - he saw the was confusion and took offquote:by UKMB: First, Pierzynski . . . played some very smart 'heads-up' ball, and got away with it
good post Pilsner - very sensible
linear - ditch that 12" black & white TV of yours & stop by BW3 later and check it on a big screen - btw, I checked out the glove & wrist angles and it DOES work
An experienced catcher, Like any of the Molina brothers would of tagged him.
Would of taken .05 seconds to put the tag on him. Period.
Would of taken .05 seconds to put the tag on him. Period.
I've called many "3rd strikes not caught" by the sound of the ball hitting off the ground..... ball comes in low, Im tracking it in, mitt turned down...then that skipping sound....
There are times when an umpire makes a decision based on information not totally seen....For example we can make a call on a foul tip based on the sound of the ball hitting the bat which may have been too fast for the eye to see.....In calls at the bases there are times when the ball and runner hit the bag ...at that time we are trained to see the ball hit the mit and listen for the foot to hit the bag to determine which happened first.....
Remembering that there are no "do-overs" in baseball so someone has to make a call with the best information at hand.....the 2 man mechanic we use in HS has your partner on the bases signal with an open hand if the ball was not caught.....thats a big help if it can be done...sometimes your partner has his hands full with the runners on base.......so a call must be made......
You state the ball did not hit the dirt, and your opinion is substaniated by how many slow motion replays and multi angle viewings of the call?.....I know I have seen this 20 times or more......lets remember no (MLB,HS or LL) umpire has that luxury....we make the call real time with the information available at the time.... Good, bad or otherwise and have to live with it...
There are times when an umpire makes a decision based on information not totally seen....For example we can make a call on a foul tip based on the sound of the ball hitting the bat which may have been too fast for the eye to see.....In calls at the bases there are times when the ball and runner hit the bag ...at that time we are trained to see the ball hit the mit and listen for the foot to hit the bag to determine which happened first.....
Remembering that there are no "do-overs" in baseball so someone has to make a call with the best information at hand.....the 2 man mechanic we use in HS has your partner on the bases signal with an open hand if the ball was not caught.....thats a big help if it can be done...sometimes your partner has his hands full with the runners on base.......so a call must be made......
You state the ball did not hit the dirt, and your opinion is substaniated by how many slow motion replays and multi angle viewings of the call?.....I know I have seen this 20 times or more......lets remember no (MLB,HS or LL) umpire has that luxury....we make the call real time with the information available at the time.... Good, bad or otherwise and have to live with it...
It amazes me the number of correct (close) calls they make on TV. They usually show a blown up replay in slow motion and it seems to be the right call over 90% of the time. The Chris Burke call at 3rd base last night comes to mind.
The fact that three days later there is little agreement as to the right call point to its subjective nature.
I can see both sides.
The fact that three days later there is little agreement as to the right call point to its subjective nature.
I can see both sides.
Dad04-I agree that these ML umpires DO get most of the calls right and have to make the calls in a split moment. They are naturally going to miss a few now and then. As I've previously stated, I think the ball was caught but would not bet the farm on it, and after replays from every angle some still refuse to believe it was a catch it tells me there s no way Eddinger could tell in 1/100 of a second that it was no catch by the sound(and there's NO WAY he could have seen it). Why then, did he choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the hitter? Answer, because he was guessing and when
Pierszinski started toward first he figured he'd better let it go because the replays
might make him look bad.
Also, I want to see Fox or ESPN do some research on his peviously umpired games and show videos of him on a swinging third strike where he stretches his right arm out horizontally, pumps his right fist to call STRIKE and pumps it again to call OUT.
Lastly, there may have been an umpire or two in my 45 years of baseball that remained
silent on a third strike/no catch situation-but never in the professional ranks. Hey,
these guys aren't getting paid chicken feed and are supposed to be the best. Sorry, but IMO he blew(blue)it.
Pierszinski started toward first he figured he'd better let it go because the replays
might make him look bad.
Also, I want to see Fox or ESPN do some research on his peviously umpired games and show videos of him on a swinging third strike where he stretches his right arm out horizontally, pumps his right fist to call STRIKE and pumps it again to call OUT.
Lastly, there may have been an umpire or two in my 45 years of baseball that remained
silent on a third strike/no catch situation-but never in the professional ranks. Hey,
these guys aren't getting paid chicken feed and are supposed to be the best. Sorry, but IMO he blew(blue)it.
Moc1
I can't wait to see his next strike 3 call. I will be surprised if it doesn't involve at least one 360 pinwheel, a double toe loop AND a ballet split.
I can't wait to see his next strike 3 call. I will be surprised if it doesn't involve at least one 360 pinwheel, a double toe loop AND a ballet split.
In a recent interview Eddings has said that he plans on changing his style to more clearly reflect the difference between calling a strike and calling a batter out....... his quote is below.....
The only thing I'm down on myself is I should have sold it either way," Eddings told The New York Times for a story in Friday's editions. Chicago beat the Los Angeles Angels 2-1 to pull even in the best-of-seven series on Wednesday night.
"I should have either said, 'No catch,' or, if I did have a catch, that he was out. Which I never said: 'He's out,"' Eddings said.
The only thing I'm down on myself is I should have sold it either way," Eddings told The New York Times for a story in Friday's editions. Chicago beat the Los Angeles Angels 2-1 to pull even in the best-of-seven series on Wednesday night.
"I should have either said, 'No catch,' or, if I did have a catch, that he was out. Which I never said: 'He's out,"' Eddings said.
I kinda feel for Eddings, as he's in RF tonite
some fans will likely "courtiously" revisit the call
.
some fans will likely "courtiously" revisit the call
.
I suggest he dress like he is behind the plate with maybe an extra chest pad or three.
If the ball had hit the dirt,the ball would have been scuffed,therefore why would the catcher roll a scuffed ball back to the mound,with his team coming to the plate.....Just a Thought.
But What do i Know?
But What do i Know?
Rock'Me-Good point.
Dado4-There'll never be one as good as Leslie Nielson-Naked Gun. I still laugh just thinking about it.
Dado4-There'll never be one as good as Leslie Nielson-Naked Gun. I still laugh just thinking about it.
Lt. Frank Drebbin with Police Squad is very versatile. Very stylish. 
Did Paul catch the ball? From the front, pitcher's view it looks like the ball may have bounced. The most conclusive view is from the low camera next to the 3rd base dugout. You can clearly see the ball impacting the web of the glove before presumably bouncing up into the pocket. So I would conclude it was a catch.
I watch over 200 MLB games each year either live or on TV (most on TV) and umpires always react to unfinished plays in one of two ways. If, for example a runner slides home and misses the plate and is not tagged, the umpire will either stand dead still so as not to give it away, or he will quickly move into a position to make a call on a subsequent tag by the catcher. The same thing happens on calls at every base. When I saw the very first replay of Eddings making the call I knew the fist pump was to indicate an out. It's since been clearly shown on the Molina at bat that on a dropped third strike Eddings slid over and waited for the tag before pumping the fist to indicate the out. But the clincher for me on the my very first viewing was Eddings' body language. On balls near the dirt, home plate umpires go on the reaction of the hitter and catcher. Since both quickly turned away Eddings assumed it was caught and if you watch his body language, he leaned back and kicked up his front foot which is a dead give away that he thought the play was over. If he thought the play was still alive he would have stood still or slid into position to make a call on a possible tag by the catcher. Once AJ started running Eddings figured he guessed wrong and tried to later say he never rung him up. That, of course is bulls*&t. His body language on the fist pump gave him away.
Jon
I watch over 200 MLB games each year either live or on TV (most on TV) and umpires always react to unfinished plays in one of two ways. If, for example a runner slides home and misses the plate and is not tagged, the umpire will either stand dead still so as not to give it away, or he will quickly move into a position to make a call on a subsequent tag by the catcher. The same thing happens on calls at every base. When I saw the very first replay of Eddings making the call I knew the fist pump was to indicate an out. It's since been clearly shown on the Molina at bat that on a dropped third strike Eddings slid over and waited for the tag before pumping the fist to indicate the out. But the clincher for me on the my very first viewing was Eddings' body language. On balls near the dirt, home plate umpires go on the reaction of the hitter and catcher. Since both quickly turned away Eddings assumed it was caught and if you watch his body language, he leaned back and kicked up his front foot which is a dead give away that he thought the play was over. If he thought the play was still alive he would have stood still or slid into position to make a call on a possible tag by the catcher. Once AJ started running Eddings figured he guessed wrong and tried to later say he never rung him up. That, of course is bulls*&t. His body language on the fist pump gave him away.
Jon
I'd just like to say that, after talking with an umpire whos been doin umping for over 15 years, including big games (IE. National championships) and he said that the umpire completely blew the call.
He raised his right hand towards first base to indicate a swing and a miss, then he made a fist with his hand INDICATING AN OUT. Then after that, AJ ran towards first base, and the umpire changed his call.
The catcher rolled the ball back to the mound because he caught the ball, and a catcher KNOWS if he caught the ball or not. And if you look at the replay it is pretty clear (to me at least) that the ball did not touch the ground, it hit up in his webbing and bounced in the glove. Either way there is no indesputeable evidence to show that it touched the ground. NONE.
And BTW I heard the umps blew 3 more calls tonight. I saw the tag at first but was called safe (I think it was the Sox leadoff guy), and the catchers interference... what was the other one?
BTW IMO the umps are costing the Angels the game ;\ (And no, I'm not a Halo fan)
He raised his right hand towards first base to indicate a swing and a miss, then he made a fist with his hand INDICATING AN OUT. Then after that, AJ ran towards first base, and the umpire changed his call.
The catcher rolled the ball back to the mound because he caught the ball, and a catcher KNOWS if he caught the ball or not. And if you look at the replay it is pretty clear (to me at least) that the ball did not touch the ground, it hit up in his webbing and bounced in the glove. Either way there is no indesputeable evidence to show that it touched the ground. NONE.
And BTW I heard the umps blew 3 more calls tonight. I saw the tag at first but was called safe (I think it was the Sox leadoff guy), and the catchers interference... what was the other one?
BTW IMO the umps are costing the Angels the game ;\ (And no, I'm not a Halo fan)
whether paul caught the ball or not is no longer relevant. what's really a shame is that the umpire let a call like that determine a playoff game. the drop third strike rule is for when the ball CLEARLY bounces, not for when the pitch needs to be slowed down and replayed billions of times. from the umpire's view, there is no way he could have seen whether that ball bounced or not, and by making that call, he let something he obviously wasn't sure about (regardless of what he says; after looking at the replay still no one is sure whether the ball bounced) determine the outcome of a game. An umpire cannot make bush league calls like that in the 9th inning of the ALCS.
dbg_fan said: He gave the out signal after the swing, and as the catcher...
************************************************
The ump only gave the sign that the call was a strike, not that the batter was out. He didn't turn sideways and extend his arms, then pull his arm hard into his body as the umps normally do when they call the batter out on a third called strike.
The confusion came in because as in football there is a whistle that let's everyone know that the play is either still in play, or the play has ended.
The catcher for the LA team had no right whatsoever to do what he did. It is not his job to determine whether the play is over, nor it is his job to call balls and strikes. He assumed that because the batter swung and missed he was out, not taking into account that the ball actually hit the ground first, which then required him to throw down to first to get the batter out.
Believe I have played enough baseball and have been a catcher to know that your glove at a backhand position catching a low ball into the ground will not have the same feel to it as a ball that hits the glove directly. The catcher hesitated then flipped the ball toward the mound hoping to ge the umps call, but he miscalculated.
It is no different than a batter making an assumptive move to first base to get a BB on a strike/ball call where he assumes the call is going to be called ball four. That's what the catcher did. He was wrong.
Now, let's look at the umps's reaction.
The ump was wrong in the way he handled the whole thing. He should ahve brought all the umps together and had a adhoc caucus to get opinions from them as to what they all saw. If in his opinion they could not agree then he would ahve at least assured himself that his actions were correct for the effect of appearances. Since he didn't do so he is responsible for the controversy through his mismanagement of the event.
************************************************
The ump only gave the sign that the call was a strike, not that the batter was out. He didn't turn sideways and extend his arms, then pull his arm hard into his body as the umps normally do when they call the batter out on a third called strike.
The confusion came in because as in football there is a whistle that let's everyone know that the play is either still in play, or the play has ended.
The catcher for the LA team had no right whatsoever to do what he did. It is not his job to determine whether the play is over, nor it is his job to call balls and strikes. He assumed that because the batter swung and missed he was out, not taking into account that the ball actually hit the ground first, which then required him to throw down to first to get the batter out.
Believe I have played enough baseball and have been a catcher to know that your glove at a backhand position catching a low ball into the ground will not have the same feel to it as a ball that hits the glove directly. The catcher hesitated then flipped the ball toward the mound hoping to ge the umps call, but he miscalculated.
It is no different than a batter making an assumptive move to first base to get a BB on a strike/ball call where he assumes the call is going to be called ball four. That's what the catcher did. He was wrong.
Now, let's look at the umps's reaction.
The ump was wrong in the way he handled the whole thing. He should ahve brought all the umps together and had a adhoc caucus to get opinions from them as to what they all saw. If in his opinion they could not agree then he would ahve at least assured himself that his actions were correct for the effect of appearances. Since he didn't do so he is responsible for the controversy through his mismanagement of the event.