strange ending

[46zilzal]

White Sox/Angels ends in an ODD manner. Catcher must be kicking himself

[Observer]

Who says one call can't make a difference???

What exactly did the catch do wrong that he should be kicking himself??? The catcher caught the ball .. and the homeplate ump called the batter out .. and at first the batter believed he was out.

Chicago got lucky tonight with that call.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Lucky, yes, and we'll take it, certainly aren't going to throw it back. Tough to lose a game like that.

The Angel's manager was classy in the after-game interview. Frankly, either team needed to do a little more to avoid the affects of one of those possible mistakes, either way.

In my mind, the pitch was so close to the dirt, it wouldn't have hurt for him to tag the batter anyway, just in case. How many times do NFL receivers think they've caught the ball only to sometimes have it reversed on instant replay.

Sure wish we had the double turned triple turned out at the plate back, although now it doesn't matter.

What a close game, lots of great pitching.

[Valuist]

Maybe MLB ought to revisit the rule re: dropped (or so called dropped) third strikes.

I don't know what was worse; the call or the excuses that the ump rep, crew chief and Eddings came up with at the press conference. Just admit it; you blew the call.

I agree Scioscia handled it very classy. I would've been going ballistic.

[Wiley]

ESPN sports center showed Pierzynski earlier in the year getting burnt as a catcher on a similar play so it was on his mind to head out. They thought since Pierzynski was catching he knew the home plate umps rhythm's calling a guy out on strikes, maybe Paul did not know this coming in the game late, so the ump probably didn't say you're out which signaled Pierzynski to run.
They also went over the umps strike signal's over the course of the game which appeared to be consistent with the disputed call though he never did make a motion of out on any of these plays just the swing motion and fist clinch to symbolize a strike.

[Bubbles]

My goodness. As an Angels fan, I go to bed when it's a 1-1 ballgame because I was extremely tired. Then I wake up to a swinging strikeout that turned into a game-winning run.

I understand that in a situation like this, you don't want to blow a call on the other extreme (i.e.: Ball CLEARLY bounces in front of catcher, guy called out). But seriously, this was about as ridiculous a call as I've ever seen on a baseball field.

[cj]

That was absolutely horrible. Just watched it on tape delay here, and there is no way the ball hit the dirt. More importantly, the home plate umpire CLEARLY gave the out signal. Baseball should be ashamed of itself for allowing such an important game to be decided by this sham.

[BIG RED]

Went over and watched this game with my dad. I told him if they get out of that inning the call would be history and they would move on, but........... they actually end up winning the game that inning , tragic. I agree the umps sounded so idiotic at the release later.

[WINMANWIN]

The homeplate umpire in that game was SO OFF, BASEBALL has to be embarrassed :lol: Not only did he BLOW THAT STRIKEOUT call :eek: He was calling strikes on OBVIOUS BALLS on some pitches :ThmbDown: The real CAPPER of it was, when the 3rd base UMP had a chance to REVERSE the call and he didnt. :blush:

[BetHorses!]

I agree Scioscia handled it very classy. I would've been going ballistic.


me too. Imagine if it was Ozzie or Piniella...they still be on the field

[Fwizard]

I can see the home plate ump missing it but the third or second base should have come to his aid---Just like in the movie "Naked Gun"---"even the scoreboard operator can see he was out.."

[toetoe]

I agree the rule should be revisited. No chance of getting to first, yet any runners free to advance. This presupposes that the situation must be: 0 out or 1 out.

[freeneasy]

mechanically and automatically decides the call for you.
1) batter swings, misses, strike 3, batters out, defense comming off the field at the umpires signaling of strike three
2) batter runs to first base with no further play made to throw the runner out
3) home plate umpire did not see the ball hit the dirt after the catcher caught the swing and miss, 3rd out, strike 3 pitch
4) none of the 3 other infield umpires saw the ball hit the dirt after the catcher caught the swing and miss, 3rd out, strike 3 pitch
5)all infield umpires decisions should have been, regaurdless of weather or not the ball came out of the catchers mitt and the batter was the only one to have seen this happenif, if it did happen , the batter must remain out as called by the home plate umpire as there is no evidence that can be given by any of the other infield umpires to, at minimum refute the call made by the home plate umpire.
that has got to be the most simplist logic in baseball to understand and follow as far as any call in baseball can ever be made. and these drunk baboonians could'nt even put there 4 heads together and get this call on the right side of the fence. no, they let the entire bennifit of the doubt go to the batter.

iam covinced that the dumps er er umps based the entire premise for their decision on the fact that "well, it makes no sense that the batter would make a legal run to first base after stiking out if he hadnt of seen the ball hit the ground at some point so in this case since we did not see the ball hit the ground then we cant refute the fact that the batter may have seen something that we the umpires didnt and so being that this is the more stronger of the evidence that he have to rely on then we must be compelled to give the benifit of the doubt to the batter who afterall had the best view of it all, right burt? right ernie
i hope we dont find any of these 4 stooges doing anymore playoff games. the commisoner should place their decision under immeadiate review and these 4 bozo's should be immeadiately replaced for making one of the worst decisions that i can remember, thats for sho

[toetoe]

They are pretty pathetic, and the logic based on the batter's behavior can be applied more convincingly to the catcher's!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Angels catcher blew it, but 1 run wouldn't win the game. Angels already got a gift in doubling up a stupid Sox runner off 2nd earlier. Ump couldn't see the catch to comfirm the out, and the out was not confirmed by a tag or throw to 1st. LAA at A loses.

[PaceAdvantage]

The homeplate umpire in that game was SO OFF, BASEBALL has to be embarrassed :lol: Not only did he BLOW THAT STRIKEOUT call :eek: He was calling strikes on OBVIOUS BALLS on some pitches :ThmbDown: The real CAPPER of it was, when the 3rd base UMP had a chance to REVERSE the call and he didnt. :blush:

Is this the same ump who called Robinson Cano out because he "drifted out of his lane" the other night?

[toetoe]

That call was micromanagement at its worst. Erstad was at fault in that case. The double play was understandable, in that the ball was a bit of an optical illusion. It's not exactly the same as forgetting the # of outs or running through a sign.

[kingfin66]

That was absolutely horrible. Just watched it on tape delay here, and there is no way the ball hit the dirt. More importantly, the home plate umpire CLEARLY gave the out signal. Baseball should be ashamed of itself for allowing such an important game to be decided by this sham.

I agree that Doug missed the call. The pitch was caught cleanly by the catcher near the ground. There is no way that he could have seen it either way and there is also no way that Pierzynski could have told either. That leaves the 3B umpire and the 3B dugout with the best view. I'm not clear why Doug did not get help from the 3B umpire and why the crew did not get together and get this call right.

That said, I think that people are awfully quick to crucify the umpires without fully understanding their mechanics. CJ, you and others say that Doug clearly called the batter out. What actually happened is that he used a swinging strike mechanic to indicate strike three. Doug happens to use very basic and crisp mechanics - the same as they are taught at umpire school. When calling swinging strikes, including strike three, umpires will use their normal strike call mechanic but without voice. That is all he did. What confuses people is that Doug's strike call mechanic is the same as an out call. He clearly made a strike call, not an out call.

Although, not strictly his fault, the guy who could have helpe to avoid this situation is Josh Paul. Although I am no longer an umpire, I spent three seasons umpiring in the minor leagues. On top of the 300 or so pro games I umpired, I probably umpired three times that many amateur games. I have watched countless other major league games on TV. What catchers always manage to to, at all levels, is tag the batter on a swinging strike three when there are two outs, or less than two outs with first base unoccupied. If only...

It's kind of surprising that this hasn't happened before. Actually, it probably has, but nobody really noticed because this game is of such a large magnitude. You definitely hate to see something like this happen. It will go down as one of the most controversial calls in baseball history, especially if the Angels lose the series. The top controversial calls:

1975 - Ed Armbrister/Carlton Fisk. Collision at the plate and a famous "no call" by plate umpire Larry Barnett. Naturally, Boston fans still feel screwed by this play, but Barnett was actually right. Armbrister had a right to run to first base and Fisk had a right to field the ball.

1985 - Don Denkinger calls Jorge Orta safe at 1st base. He obviously blew this call and admitted it. A bad deal for St. Louis.

1978 - Reggie Jackson throws a hip to break up a double play. This was an interesting play, and I was fortunate to actually hear the audio of Lasorda's argument when I attended umpire school. The play began with Reggie on first and a sinking liner hit to Dodger's shortstop Bill Russell. Where the umpires missed this call is that Bill Russell intentionally dropped the ball so that he could turn a double play. An infielder must let the ball drop untouched. The relay throw to first hit Jackson in the hip and the replay showed that Jackson may have leaned out to deflect the throw. Many people assume this is what Lasorda was arguing. What he was really arguing is that Jackson is required to move out of the way of the throw which is, of course, not true. Runners usually get out of the way naturall to avoid getting hit with a baseball thrown very, very hard.

2005 - Douglas Eddings. I hate to see such a thing happen to such a genuinely nice guy and good umpire (he is one of the best natural umpires that I have ever seen despite what WINMANWIN thinks). I really hope that the Angels win this series so that this call does not cast a pall over the entire post season.

[WINMANWIN]

[QUOTE=kingfin66]I agree that Doug missed the call. The pitch was caught cleanly by the catcher near the ground. There is no way that he could have seen it either way and there is also no way that Pierzynski could have told either. That leaves the 3B umpire and the 3B dugout with the best view. I'm not clear why Doug did not get help from the 3B umpire and why the crew did not get together and get this call right.

The home plate umpire Doug did get help from the 3rd base umpire, after the Angel mgr requested it. The 3rd base umpire did not reverse the call, as we
all know. Simply put, this umpire just blew it BIG TIME. Like I stated earlier,
If any of you watched the game, he was HORRIBLE CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES, HE CALLED SOME STRIKES THAT WERE Obvious Balls. When they review this umpire after its all said and done, he better hope he has some UNION JUICE WITH WHOMEVER. :blush: P.S. I dont care who WINS THE SERIES, BUT AS A FAN, I LIKE TO SEE IT PLAYED FAIR AND SQUARE.

[freeneasy]

no excuses on anybodies part. one of the base umpires should have have asked the plate umpire if he seen the ball touch the ground. once it was established he did not see the ball touch the ground then an automatic consensus should have been taken
did you see the ball hit the ground? no
did you see the ball hit the ground? no
did you see the ball hit the ground? no
did you see the ball hit the ground? no
nobody espeacially the home plate umpire could see, tell or know for sure that the pitch hit the dirt so how does it become "benifit of the doubt goes to the batter"
so from now on heres what you do. if you swing and miss a third strike pitch thats right there at the dirt then you stay at the plate for a moment wait til the pitcher leaves the mound and the catcher rolls the ball back to the mound and heads for the dugout then take off for first base and if none of the umps can say that they definently did not see any part of the ball touch the ground then the batter must be given the benifit of the doubt and you must be called safe in every case.
and as for soccia i say it is his fault and not only that but all his fault that the umpires decision was left to stand.
he should have stayed out there and yelled his lungs out until the umps realized that they were allowing the wrong call to stand. he should have never went back to the dugout. never. i dont care if he stayed out there an hour and a half he should never have walked off the field til the right call was instated. he should have made a complete, total and absolute spectacle of himself. and if he wasnt going to get his decision then he should have stayed out there scraping and scraping and fighting for his team until he got kicked out of the game and then continue on to stay out there scraping til security had to come in and drag his pissed off ass out of there.
if that would have been the case then i would say ok mike, you did everthing you could, iam glad you didnt have a gun out there but no, soccia looked like he was going over the ground rules with the umps. i dont know, seemed like it just wasnt that big of a deal to him like he had something else more important to do. tell you what, if i played for soccia id have been a lot more inspired to see him go down in a handful of flames then to standing there in the dugout watching him give off with something that kind of looked like he was having an argument with the umps. i dont know with that kind of enthusiasm the angles lose in 5

[toetoe]

I think I would do a Hank Iba, and refuse to continue, pulling my players from the field.

[kingfin66]

I don't know, I just saw more replays of the pitch tonight from various angles and in super slow mo. I will back off my previous comment that Doug blew the call. I'm not at all convinced that the ball did not hit the dirt. There is no way any of the umpires could see for sure because of how the Angels catcher caught the ball...he basically smothered it. Bottom line, the catcher should have tagged the runner as catchers are taught to do. Bottom, bottom line, the Angels gave up a stolen base after "the pitch" and then Escobar left a pitch up and it got roped. Scioscia - not Soccia - has actually handled the situation the way he should; that is to have his team put it behind them and get ready to play on Friday.

[Valuist]

It is possible the White Sox would've won anyways. The Angels weren't doing anything off Buerhle and the Sox had a fresher pen than the Angels.

But I don't think there's any question that the umpire made the wrong call. He will be remembered for blowing that call, just like Don Denkinger in 1985.

[Dave Schwartz]

My background in baseball umpiring is that of Joe Brinkman's Umpire School (early '80s). So, what I am sharing here is based upon what is taught at that level. Admittedly, the umpiring situation has changed in MLB since the breaking of the original union, but I can only assume that things have not changed that much.
+++++++++++++++++++++

There are two issues: The "procedure" for handling the call and the "call" itself.


1. The procedure for handling the call.
A swinging strike is normally not "called." That is, there is no verbal indication of a swinging strike (except on a check swing, which is different.) Note that umpires who insist on "ringing them loud" on swinging strikes are considered to be "showing up" the hitter. They will never make it to the minors let alone the majors.

In the situation where there is "a 3rd strike - not caught" the instruction is to clearly designate the 3rd strike as "something abnormal." You do this by announcing in a relatively normal voice something like, "Strike 3" and then just standing there, doing nothing. It is this "being obvious" that is supposed to tip off the players that something is amiss.

(Note that this is similar to the rare occurrence where a runner slides into home and misses the plate and the umpire makes no call at all.)

So, in the interview after the game the batter said that he heard the umpire say strike three but "he did not call me out." This was the clue that the umpire procedurally did the correct thing. That is, he believed that the pitch was not a legal catch.

My conclusion here is that if the batter could get this, the catcher should have as well.


2. The call itself.
Did the ball hit the ground or not? But first, let's understand how an umpire makes a call such as this - or any call for that matter.

The umpire has five senses (or at least most of them do <G>). Two of them, sight and sound, are used in umpiring. Calling balls and strikes is no different. You never see a foul tip, for example. You can only hear it. If you can see a foul tip, it isn't a foul tip all; it's a foul ball.

My first reaction when I saw the play was "What a horrible call," like most people did. But the umpire in me causes me to ask, "What did he think happened?" before I voiced that opinion (okay, maybe I said it a little). When I watched the replay for the 8th time or so, they showed a slow-mo of the ball just before it entered the glove. It clearly traveled an upward path. In other words, it bounced.

That does not mean he got it right. The contention of McCarver was that "there was leather" between the ball and the ground. Maybe - and maybe not.

Personally, I am about 60-40 towards "he got it right."


Summary
The truth is that this call should have been unimportant. If the catcher simply did what he was supposed to do (like the batter did) it would have simply been recorded as an out at first.

Do not forget that several innings earlier the umpire got a similar call precisely right: A foul tip that he said hit the dirt before being caught. That is 3 sounds - tip, bounce, catch - very tough to diagnose.

So, the media will place the emphasis on the call, when it should be on the procedure.



Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

[headhawg]

I think it's ok for sports fans to become incensed when they think that there's been a bad call or a missed play in a game. That's what sports fans do: they second guess, have heated discussions about which player is the best of all time, and vehemently argue about certain plays that occur in a game.

But I also think that it's very naive to think that one play -- ANY one play -- determines the outcome of a sporting event. In this case, as Kingfin has already pointed out, the Halos didn't throw the runner out at 2nd base on the steal attempt thus putting him in scoring position, and with two strikes on Crede, Escobar hung one that got smoked for a double. If they throw the runner out at 2nd or Crede strikes out, I bet that this would be a much shorter thread.

At the risk of sounding a little too much like Dirty Harry here, I think that you have to ask yourself just one question: What made Pierzynski run to first? If you think that you've struck out, you're postive the catcher caught the ball, and the umpire says that you're out, you flat-out don't bother to run. Major Leaguers barely run out anything today. So Pierzynski must have felt that there was something left to that play and it turns out that he was right. The bad call was on Josh Paul not on the umpire. He could have tagged the batter or simply thrown down to first. That's the bigger play, not the alleged missed call. (And to me, it's inconclusive whether the ball was caught or trapped.)

And for those of you who disagree with my assessment that's just fine; these debates are in large part why we have more than just a passing interest in sports. But I'm willing to bet that you are the same fans that think that other plays were the direct cause of a game's outcome like (1) Graffanino's error costing the Red Sox Game 2 of this year's ALDS (Bigger play: Wells' fat hanging curveball to Iguchi), or (2) that Steve Bartman cost the Cubs the 2003 N.L. pennant (Bigger plays: Well, I didn't see Bartman make the error at short or serve up those beachballs that the Marlins hit like frozen ropes, AND it was only Game 6), or (3) that Bill Buckner's error cost the Red Sox the World Seriies in '86 (Nope. Bigger play: Manager McNamara not putting defensive-minded Dave Stapleton at 1st AND this was only Game 6!!!!)

I'm a firm believer that "breaks" tend to even themselves out in a seven game series, and I also believe that the best team will win here. Hopefully that will be the White Sox. Then I can add another play to my "Naive Baseball Fan" questionnaire. :)

[Valuist]

To answer your question on what made Pierzcynski run was he was involved in a similar play last year with the Giants. He was on the other end that time, as the catcher. It looked like he took a couple steps towards the dugout before he decided to run. It was a longshot to work out, but definitely a heads up play on his part.

Can one play make the difference? The one game that comes to mind IMO is that Raiders/Patriots playoff game a few years ago w/the infamous "Tuck rule".

[cj]

The catcher did not mess up, period. He caught the ball. Why would he have any reason to tag the runner if he caught the ball? I caught many, many games in my life. I don't think a ball was ever pitched that I didn't know if I caught before or after the bounce. NOT ONE!

Would he have helped out the umpire by tagging the runner? Sure he would have, but you don't tag a runner when you catch the ball. He is the only one that really knows, and his initial reaction makes me 100% certain that he did catch the ball. It really is that simple. To try to blame him for an umpire's mistake is silly.

[kingfin66]

My background in baseball umpiring is that of Joe Brinkman's Umpire School (early '80s).

Cool Dave. I went to the Harry Wendlestedt school in 1989. A fellow student was one Douglas Eddings, fresh out of high school. Doug finished 2nd in the class behind Ray DiMuro, whose father Lou was an American League umpire. Ray got the top student award but Doug clearly deserved it (nepotism 101). Ironically, Ray and Doug were, and remain, very good friends.

There are two issues: The "procedure" for handling the call and the "call" itself.


1. The procedure for handling the call.
A swinging strike is normally not "called." That is, there is no verbal indication of a swinging strike (except on a check swing, which is different.) Note that umpires who insist on "ringing them loud" on swinging strikes are considered to be "showing up" the hitter. They will never make it to the minors let alone the majors.

In the situation where there is "a 3rd strike - not caught" the instruction is to clearly designate the 3rd strike as "something abnormal." You do this by announcing in a relatively normal voice something like, "Strike 3" and then just standing there, doing nothing. It is this "being obvious" that is supposed to tip off the players that something is amiss.

(Note that this is similar to the rare occurrence where a runner slides into home and misses the plate and the umpire makes no call at all.)

So, in the interview after the game the batter said that he heard the umpire say strike three but "he did not call me out." This was the clue that the umpire procedurally did the correct thing. That is, he believed that the pitch was not a legal catch.

My conclusion here is that if the batter could get this, the catcher should have as well.

I agree with all of the above.

2. The call itself.
Did the ball hit the ground or not? But first, let's understand how an umpire makes a call such as this - or any call for that matter.


The umpire has five senses (or at least most of them do <G>). Two of them, sight and sound, are used in umpiring. Calling balls and strikes is no different. You never see a foul tip, for example. You can only hear it. If you can see a foul tip, it isn't a foul tip all; it's a foul ball.

I swear I have smelled burning wood on a foul tip before.

My first reaction when I saw the play was "What a horrible call," like most people did. But the umpire in me causes me to ask, "What did he think happened?" before I voiced that opinion (okay, maybe I said it a little). When I watched the replay for the 8th time or so, they showed a slow-mo of the ball just before it entered the glove. It clearly traveled an upward path. In other words, it bounced.

That does not mean he got it right. The contention of McCarver was that "there was leather" between the ball and the ground. Maybe - and maybe not.

McCarver is, IMHO, much of the problem here. He was so emphatic in telling teh viewing public that Eddings both called strike three and the third out, that everybody seems to believe it.

Personally, I am about 60-40 towards "he got it right."

I don't understand how everybody is so sure that the ball was caught cleanly. Josh Paul totally butchered the catch in terms of his technique. The way his glove was turned made it so that the umpire could not have seen it clearly. This is unfortunate as the umpire would have been able to see it very clearly had Paul caught the the way he is supposed to (with the glove oriented so that the fingers are pointed to the right).


Summary
The truth is that this call should have been unimportant. If the catcher simply did what he was supposed to do (like the batter did) it would have simply been recorded as an out at first.

Do not forget that several innings earlier the umpire got a similar call precisely right: A foul tip that he said hit the dirt before being caught. That is 3 sounds - tip, bounce, catch - very tough to diagnose.

So, the media will place the emphasis on the call, when it should be on the procedure.

The media tends to blow calls like this out of proportion. Right or wrong, it will go down as one of the most controversial calls in history.



Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz[/QUOTE]

[kingfin66]

The catcher did not mess up, period. He caught the ball.

You must have extra special TV reception over in Europe. Seems that most people over on the other side of the pond cannot tell definitively whether the ball was caught.[/quote]

Why would he have any reason to tag the runner if he caught the ball? I caught many, many games in my life. I don't think a ball was ever pitched that I didn't know if I caught before or after the bounce. NOT ONE!

They are coached to tag the runners on close strike three catches/no catches. The idea here is to not leave it up to the umpire. You will often see infielders who catch low liners make the throw anyway. At the very least, players will "show" the ball to the umpire to sell them on the catch.

It really is that simple. To try to blame him for an umpire's mistake is silly.

Interesting. Mike Port, former GM of the Angels, and currently in charge of MLB umpires did not seem to think that the umpire made a mistake at all.

[cj]

Here is the heart of the matter:

Plate umpires are trained to shout ``No catch!'' or indicate that the ball is in play after a swinging strike; Eddings, who has maintained that he was right in saying the ball hit the dirt before Paul gloved it, was silent.

``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.

[cj]

Interesting. Mike Port, former GM of the Angels, and currently in charge of MLB umpires did not seem to think that the umpire made a mistake at all.

What would you expect him to say?

I don't think anyone expect officials in any sport to be perfect. It turns into a joke when they circle the wagons and start trying to cover up mistakes with lame explanations.

My take, I think the ump choked. He didn't know what to do after the runner took off and made it to first. He was taken by surprise as much as the Angels were, and to be honest, I think he just guessed it hit the dirt since the batter ran. We'll never really know.

[kingfin66]

If you're still trying to argue that he blew the call, those quotes don't help. It looks like you're trying to argue that he should have said "no catch." The context in which you used the quotes confuses me.

[cj]

I think he blew the call, the guy caught the ball. I have yet to see any evidence that indicates otherwise. Not only did he blow the call, he then compounded the error by not indicating what exactly the call was as umpires are taught to do. Further, regardless of what these guys try to spin after the fact, ask anyone that has played or umpired baseball what the closed fist pump means, the very fist pump that he did after the pitch...OUT! It has never meant anything else on the baseball field. If it does for him, he was using poor technique.

It's over, life goes on, I don't even care who wins. I just hate when these guys screw up and refuse to admit it and create explanations. If my kids tried this crap when they screwed up, they'd be in deep trouble with me. You get more respect owning up to your mistakes.

As I said earlier, he got caught with his pants down when the guy ran to first, and I think he just choked. I watched PTI shortly after posting earlier, and those guys said nearly the exact same things I'm saying. It doesn't mean I'm right (I am though :)), just that others saw the same things I did.

[WINMANWIN]

Quote:
Interesting. Mike Port, former GM of the Angels, and currently in charge of MLB umpires did not seem to think that the umpire made a mistake at all.


I find it odd that the Angels former GM is the supervisor for the umpires. :eek: I would assume Port was an umpire in the past. He also was making more DOUGH as the GM of the Angels, and am guessing he got booted
when the new owner took over :confused: He may have some hard feelings toward the ANGELS :rolleyes:

[freeneasy]

you gave us half the case but isnt ther supposed to be another half to go along with it
youve indicated that an umpire calling a swinging strike with the same loud tone as he would make on a called strike is not long for the majors letalone the minors
and as well without going "overboard" through hand gestures he also gives off a visable ruling as an indication of his call on a swing and a miss 3rd strike. iow if it was a foul tip the ump would make a physical gesture waving his arms off in a "no play" motion
and in the case of this strike 3 swing, from the point of the elbow he raised his arm straight up to hold a fist thereby affiriming the play was a strike with no other attachments such as a foul tip.
the second half iam refering to is, is when a 3rd strike is in effect, weather it is a called strike three or a swing and a miss strike three, is the umpire obligated to verbally, verbally call the batter out.
see what iam saying here dave, if the ump is obligated to verbally call the batter out after indicating the pitch to be a strike three out then that batter is out at the plate but
if after a swing and a miss 3rd strike and no other outside circumstances being attached to the play takes place if the ump is not obligated to verbally call the batter out then were left with what we had the other day. the batter swung and missed on a third strike but remained safe at the plate until he was tagged or thrown out at first base
so the question is "are umpires obligated to verbally call the batter out on a swing and a miss strike 3" if so then the batter is out at the plate
if the umpire is not obligated to verbally call the batter out at the plate then we have a bad call on the part of the home plate umpire and the worst decision that 4 seasoned umpires could have ever of possibly agreed upon. unbelieveable. i tell you one thing mike, tommy would still be in chicago arguing the call, i just couldnt believe what a blazae attempt you made to argue the call, it was like you were in a dingy with your best girl gently rowing down the stream singing merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily bla bla bla bla bla

[Dave Schwartz]

There is no signal for a dropped third strike as there is for a foul tip.

The issue is the tone and the demeanor. There should be a certain formality to the umpire's actions indicating that things are not as they seem.

In reviewing the play again, I did see the umpire do something which I find confusing: he appeared to make a second hand signal.


And, just for the record (is there a record?), IMHO there should be a call of some kind to indicate the play is not complete. That is simply not what they teach in the schools.


Dave

[freeneasy]

if that was earl weaver "doing argumentitives" with the umpires on a call like that, once he's flipped his cap on backwards, well you know earl its just a matter of time before he says somting to you that just aint going to be about baseball :lol: and billy martin? oh lord, please no, not billy. by this time billy martin would be in the high power lockdown units at chicago's cook county jail.

[kingfin66]

Quote:
Interesting. Mike Port, former GM of the Angels, and currently in charge of MLB umpires did not seem to think that the umpire made a mistake at all.


I find it odd that the Angels former GM is the supervisor for the umpires. :eek: I would assume Port was an umpire in the past. He also was making more DOUGH as the GM of the Angels, and am guessing he got booted
when the new owner took over :confused: He may have some hard feelings toward the ANGELS :rolleyes:

Um, I doubt he has hard feelings toward the Angels. He was actually the GM several years ago as I recall. I doubt that Mike Port has any kind of background in umpiring. That's not the way it works. He is an administrator, executive, whatever you want to call it. He is "in charge" of the umpires which means he oversees minor league development, travel, supervisors, etc.. Sandy Alderson handled the job prior to Port. He was also an executive for a Major League team (Oakland) before doing that job.

[kingfin66]

if that was earl weaver "doing argumentitives" with the umpires on a call like that, once he's flipped his cap on backwards, well you know earl its just a matter of time before he says somting to you that just aint going to be about baseball :lol: and billy martin? oh lord, please no, not billy. by this time billy martin would be in the high power lockdown units at chicago's cook county jail.

Earl Weaver was 1/2 half of perhaps the most famous argument of all time. We actually viewed this argument as an example of how not to handle a situation with a manager. The other 1/2 of this confrontation was retired American League umpire Bill Haller. Haller called a balk on the Orioles pitcher. Weaver came out to argue the balk which is an automatic ejection. He said his piece, blasted the umpire, etc., then everytime he tried to leave the umpire said something back. Basically, neither would give the other the last word. Weaver told Haller than when he's done nobody will ever remember him. Haller said that's true, but nobody would ever remember Earl either. Weaver fumed, "I'm gonna be in the Hall of Fame!" Haller replied, "for what, f&@&ng up World Series'?" Weaver insisted that he won more than he lost and on and on it went. Very, very funny.

[kingfin66]

I think he blew the call, the guy caught the ball. I have yet to see any evidence that indicates otherwise. Not only did he blow the call, he then compounded the error by not indicating what exactly the call was as umpires are taught to do. Further, regardless of what these guys try to spin after the fact, ask anyone that has played or umpired baseball what the closed fist pump means, the very fist pump that he did after the pitch...OUT! It has never meant anything else on the baseball field. If it does for him, he was using poor technique.

It's over, life goes on, I don't even care who wins. I just hate when these guys screw up and refuse to admit it and create explanations. If my kids tried this crap when they screwed up, they'd be in deep trouble with me. You get more respect owning up to your mistakes.

As I said earlier, he got caught with his pants down when the guy ran to first, and I think he just choked. I watched PTI shortly after posting earlier, and those guys said nearly the exact same things I'm saying. It doesn't mean I'm right (I am though :)), just that others saw the same things I did.

He may or may not have blown the call. You are of the opinion he did - fine (but he didn't ;) . As for the technique, he was using technique exactly as it is taught at umpire school. Over the past few seasons, I have noticed a lot more umpires using the crisp, basic techniques used as umpire school. If anybody has good mechanics, it is Eddings.

What is PTI? Is that Pardon The Interruption? If it is, I can almost hear Kornheiser going off in his bombastic, but highly entertaining, manner. Wilbon will then be a little less bombastic and highly articulate in stating his case. In the end, however, they are both wrong.

[freeneasy]

the hand gesture the umpire made is to only affirm the fact that the swing and the miss was a strike and is not a reference as to weather that play stands as an out or not then we got a problem. the umpire must finalize the play just like any other play at the plate because in essence thats exactly what it is, a play at the plate. runner comes home, the throw goes home, the play is at the plate and a decision and a call is made. the runner is either called safe or out out.
same difference here.
pitcher pitches the ball, the batter swings and either hits the ball, misses the ball or allows the ball to pass either way by all rights this contitutes a live play at the plate where movements on the basepaths can or cannot be made during or because of this "play at the plate"
if the batter swings and misses on a 3rd strike pitch then the batter should not be exempt from being called out as in any other called play. example "strike 3, your out"
if the batter swings and misses on a 3rd strike pitch and the batter is not out then the only proper call to make is "strike 3" indicating a strike 3 has been called but an out has not been called.
do we have any rules to this effect?

[Dave Schwartz]

FnE,

Sorry, but no. The umpire does not finalize a play that is not finished.

That is simply the way it has been done. Forever.


Dave

[Steve 'StatMan']

Just the way I like it tonight. Ahead early, very solid pitching. Will have to keep working hard and playing/pitching solid. Glad "The Play" didn't happen in a Game 7. Would be nice (to me, at least) if the White Sox could repeat tonights game a couple more times, so 'The Play' loses it's significance.

[BetHorses!]

I
But I also think that it's very naive to think that one play -- ANY one play -- determines the outcome of a sporting event. In this case, as Kingfin has already pointed out, the Halos didn't throw the runner out at 2nd base on the steal attempt thus putting him in scoring position, and with two strikes on Crede, Escobar hung one that got smoked for a double. If they throw the runner out at 2nd or Crede strikes out, I bet that this would be a much shorter thread.

:)


I disagree
Very simply if the ump made the right call they would be batting in the top of the 10th not trying to get a 4th out in the bottom of the 9th. This play determined the outcome of the game and it was terrible.

Did you see any dirt move on the super slo-mo replay? and lets forget about that for a minute...he closed his fist in a clear out signal after calling it a strike a moment before.

[BetHorses!]

And, just for the record (is there a record?), IMHO there should be a call of some kind to indicate the play is not complete. That is simply not what they teach in the schools.


Dave

Dave,

I played baseball in High School and College, when there is a play at the plate and the runner missed the plate and the catcher missed the tag isn't no signal given? Which means the play is not complete? Shouldn't he have given no signal?

[toetoe]

BH,

It's ALWAYS a strike. That's not the issue. Was he finally out? Well, the ump apparently was of that opinion. I guess he was persuaded otherwise soon afterward.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Couple umpire mistakes tonight, sad that it happened, but the pitching and playing and outcome pretty much made it moot. Just made worse when the batter was arguing while running instead of concentrated running to first, making it a double play instead of just a fielders choice. White Sox are hitting, pitching and fielding well, and when that happens, they will do well, and be in a position to capitalize on them too, getting the hit to drive in the runner that, on closer examination, was really picked off of first.

Heard the Angels are only hitting around .174 for the series, hard to do much of anything with that. But tomorrow is another day.

Getting to be a very exciting time for us in Chicago! The White Sox last went to the World Series in 1959, the year I was born. I grew up a Cubs fan on the other side of the state, thanks to Cardinal Fan friends that needed somebody to be on the 'Cubs' team in childhood Wiffle Ball games. Didn't know many fans of American League teams back then to appreciate the White Sox. My brother (Cardinals Fan back then, now Red Sox) and I had a White Sox trash can as a kid, because my mom wanted to buy us a nice surprise. When I said "But Mom, I'm a Cubs fan." she, being a mom not following baseball said, "Well, they're the same thing, aren't they?" LOL! I Love Ya Mom!

Could be very exciting for us in Chicago, as well as Houston or St. Louis. Houston has never been to the World Series since they started as an expansion franchise as the Colt 45's in 1962. In St. Louis, this is the final season of the original Busch Stadium, site of a heck of a lot of great baseball and World Series games & wins.

I've not watched this much baseball since I started taking Racing seriously back in 1992. Been a lot of fun so far! Too bad I gave up the night life - must be a lot of fun out there!

[Valuist]

Contrary to public opinion, it is possible to root for teams on both sides of town. I grew up more of a Cub fan since my parents were and we went to a few Cubs game a year. But the Sox were on TV as well in the 1970s, even if it was a lousy UHF station. And since they were on at night mostly, I probably saw more of their games. Who can forget Harry Caray and Jimmy Piersall in the booth; what a combination. Piersall was the best; he'd say anything but his knowledge of the game was tremendous. Harry would say anything because, well, he was Harry and he usually had a few too many Falstaffs.

[BetHorses!]

When Carl Everett struck out in the top of the 9th on a curve in the dirt that the catcher dropped the ump gave no signal at all. Interesting

[cj]

The guy behind the plate was brutal last night in the Astros - Cardinals game. Jim Edmonds has to know better than to get kicked out at the plate with two strikes and a baserunner in the 8th inning though! Other than the umpire, it was a fabulous game to watch.

[kenwoodallpromos]

With the sweeping tags the Angels always seem to make, it gives the umpire more to think about and reconsider. Like tagging AJ with the glove and still throwing to first base. Idiotic throw just confirmed the non-tag.

[Wiley]

The guy behind the plate was brutal last night in the Astros - Cardinals game.

I agree. The Astros pitching is great enough and they sure don't need help with marginal to outrageous strikezone calls. The only consistency with that guy was his lack of consistency. Tough loss for the Cardinals with all of the bang bang plays at the end - hand it to the Astros for making the defensive plays even with the bone head play allowing Walker to third which ranks with little leaguers.