Posted on 10/12/2005 8:24:45 PM PDT by navysealdad
Game 2 of the ACLS left Chicago celebrating a 2-1 victory. Controversial strikeout didn't end the ninth..
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
"Al, I'm with you on this one, touch the ground or not, the catcher should always make that tag just to be sure; Molina would have. It was close enough to do it anyway."
Since millions of people, myself included, saw the catcher catch the ball cleanly why on earth would he be tagging anyone?
"He never called him out. He merely called a third strike."
Not true. Watch again. The ump raises his arm vertically and makes a fist. That means OUT.
So far (and I've only read about 125 posts) I've been able to determine that the Angels lost a game because they got away with a bad call on a third strike and the White Sox were robbed? Huh? What am I missing? How long must I read to find out what in the hell happened?
Strangest ending I can remember.
This is the same as a whistle in the NFL... if a ref thinks a quarterback is "in the grass" and blows the whistle... just because the quarterback throws the ball for a first down does not mean the play counts even if he was not in the grass and the Ref says, "Yeah... I think he was not in the grass... 1st down". Once the Ref blew the whistle play is over because the Defense stops covering/tackling. Once the Ump pumped his fist, you can see Darren Erstad (the Angels 1st baseman) do the same thing and leave the field. There was no one on 1st base to throw the ball too once Erstad left. Even if the ball hit the ground, once the Ump did the fist pump, the player is out and play must end... even if the call was wrong (which it was not). The players do not need to complete every play.... games would go 5 hours if you catch a shoe string ball and the Ump calls the player out... do you still need to quickly throw the ball to first just in case?
The rules of Major League Baseball allow a manager to inform an umpire that the game is "under protest" in certain cases, which means the president of the league in question (the American League) will go through a formal review of the game and make a decision as to whether or not the protest will be upheld. The incident you cited was one of the rare cases where a protest was upheld.
It is important to remember that a manager cannot lodge a formal protest over an umpire's judgement. Formal protests are only permitted when a manager is questioning an umpire's application of the rules. For example: if a batter bounces a long fly ball over the wall and the umpire allows him to run to third instead of awarding him a ground-rule double, the opposing manager's formal protest will likely be upheld and the league president will have to make a decision as to how much of an impact the umpire's mistake had on the outcome of the game.
Because of this limitation on formal protests, and because of the fact that major league umpires are generally very competent when it comes to applying the rules of baseball, formal protests are usually only filed in response to very rare or even unprecedented game situations (two balls in play at one time, fans interfering with balls in play, baserunners getting hit by batted or thrown balls, etc.) or incorrect applications of rules that are easy for an umpire to overlook (a team batting out of order, for example).
1. After seeing the replays a number of different times and at different speeds, I have no idea if that pitch hit the ground. When I watch it in slow-motion, it looks like the catcher caught it cleanly. But when you watch it frame-by-frame, it looks like the ball is actually touching the ground for an instant just as it touches the catcher's mitt.
2. When I watched the play live on television, I thought the ball hit the ground -- or at least was close enough that the catcher would tag the batter or throw to first base. There was definitely something unusual about the play, because as I watched it I asked myself: "Why the heck did he roll that back to the mound? That ball may have hit the ground!"
3. I wonder if this play would have been executed differently by Ben Molina. Josh Paul is not the Angels' regular catcher -- he entered the game after Molina was replaced by a pinch-runner the previous inning.
4. Every catcher should be trained to be very careful with third strikes like that -- especially with a pitcher like Kelvim Escobar who throws a hard split-finger fastball that drops suddenly. If you remember last night's game, White Sox batters swung and missed at quite a few of his pitches that either hit or came very close to hitting the dirt. When in doubt on a low pitch, it takes no effort to simply tag the batter just to be safe.
They spoke at length about the weakness in Escobar's delivery -- he's a right-handed pitcher with his back to first base, and his wind-up is so slow that it's easy for runners to steal against him.
Whether the ball was trapped against the ground, bounced a tiny bit off the ground, or never touched the ground--that's beside the point, really. It was close enough that an ump in real time could very well judge it to have made contact with the ground. It's a judgment call, and that's that.
But what matters is the actions--and non-actions--of the ump. How many hand signals did he make? How did he make them? What do they mean? How did they in this instance compare with how he ordinarily makes hand signals? Those are the key questions and what we should be seeing on replays.
And perhaps most important of all is what the ump did not do: HE NEVER VERBALLY, VOCALLY, CALLED THE MAN OUT. Play continues.
Now should they ump have said, and does he normally say, "No catch," when the ball touches the ground? I don't know.
And if--IF--his hand signals created a confusing "cognitive dissonance," then he's at least partially at fault. But I'm not sure they did. Tell me if this is correct: He made two hand/arm gestures. First, an outstretched arm, meaning no bat contact. Second, a clenched fist, meaning strike. Is that correct, or were there more than those two gestures? (I don't have cable, so I can't watch ESPN for a thousand replays.)
Remember, the hand signal for out is not just a clenched fist (which means strike), but a clenched fist accompanied by a short hammered motion, a pumping action. Was that there or not?
Finally, catcher Paul himself has admitted that he never heard the ump SAY, "Out." The catcher never saw the ump's hand signals anyway; he's facing out toward the field. And he rolled the ball away before the clenched fist, too. He should have waited for a verbalized out call.
This is a very good point.
I wonder what the veteran catcher who manages the Angels had to say to the third-string catcher who exercised gross negligence by presuming the oucome of a critical close call?
That means strike out.
I agree with most of what you say. I would add at the end he should have tagged the batter or thrown to first in the absence of call.
This will be my email to Jim Rome's show today...
"I actually did vote to call Pierzynski (sp) out...before I voted against it."
--Sincerely, John Kerry Eddings
(And yes, I think the Angels will rally behind it...though it would be nice if the leadoff and #3/#4 hitters would actually...uh...hit? Not swing on the first bloody pitch all the time?)
Yeah, the same 3rd string catcher who didn't even attempt a throw to put out the base stealer???
The same catcher who I wonder if he called the pitch that Escobar threw to Crede with an 0-2 Count???
Now what I would also like to see is the put out at second base in the 7th inning. It looks like he was safe at second when called out after the catch in left field. If anyone has a link to that video, I'd appreciate it.
BTW - This same umpire made an OUTSTANDING call on Rowand at the plate. He was out there.
But that 7th inning put out at second, I am not so sure about.
I think the more I think about it, the more I feel Paul the catcher is the one who lost this game for the Angels along with Escobar.
The winners are Pierzynski's great awareness to run to first after NOT hearing out. (He is a catcher) He also never even glances at the dugout before running to first.
And how about that stolen second base.
And How about Crede's shot off the wall to win the game. No doubt about those plays.
Someone link me that 7th inning play please.
Regards,
Joe
In a low scoring game there's usually enough blame to go around.
The Angels didn't lose by any reason of skill or competence having overtaken them. They lost because an ump is too big of an idiot to admit he was just dead wrong. Anyway, if you can feel good about a win that wasn't, that didn't occur because of anything the Sox did right or anything the Angels did wrong, then enjoy. Personally I would think it feels really hollow.
Go Sox? Your chant should be "Go Ump!" The Sox didn't win that game for themselves. And umpire too prideful and too stubborn to admit he was wrong won it for them.
..Arnold Rothstein apparently still lives.
Here's the FReeper Notes version:
Two outs, bottom of the ninth inning, bases empty, 1-1 tie. Kelvim Escobar gets A.J. Pierzynski (sp) to swing and miss on strike 3, on a breaking ball that goes low. Angels catcher Josh Paul caught the ball with his glove on the ground, but the ball never touched the ground.
Home plate umpire Doug Eddings made two distinct motions: swing (right arm) and out (raised fist). The catcher (Paul) rolled the ball back to the mound, as the entire Angel team heads to the dugout. Batter Pierzynski took two steps toward his dugout, then takes off for first base. He reaches base and is called safe (after he was called out).
Rules dictate that if the pitch is in the dirt or is not caught by the catcher on strike 3, the batter must be tagged out, or the ball must be thrown down to first base to retire the batter. Otherwise the runner is safe. (Either way, it is a strikeout...which is little consolation now...)
Scioscia comes out to argue...apparently none of the umpires saw Paul catch it before it hit the dirt (which it never did hit the dirt), so the play stood. The White Sox pinch ran for Pierzynski, and on the second pitch to the batter, the pinch runner steals second without a throw.
Two outs, runner on second, 0-2 count, Escobar grooves a pitch that the batter crushes to the left field wall, and with the runner going on contact (because it was two outs), there is no way that any outfielder (especially Garret Anderson) could make a play. Winning run scores, White Sox win 2-1, series tied at 1.
Ed. note: some of the commentators cross-sport-referenced this bad call to the Patriots-Raiders playoff game, with Tom Brady's fumble/forward pass...I thought of a worse one: the 1998 Thanksgiving game with the Steelers and the Lions...the game went to OT, the referee/line judge clearly asked Steelers co-captain Jerome Bettis what his call was (as the visiting team).
Bettis said "heads". The microphone clearly picked up Bettis's voice saying "heads". The idiot ref/line judge, standing right next to him, said "tails is the call", to which Bettis immediately said "I said 'heads'!"
The flip was tails, the Lions 'won' the toss, and won the game in overtime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.