PDA

View Full Version : Grand slam by Gload?


starboy0
07-02-2004, 05:43 PM
I was unable to watch the game but I heard a slam by Gload was overturned? I'm wondering what are people's take on this?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 05:45 PM
:nandrolone
"The umpire's ruling only counts if I agree with it. I didn't, and it was reversed."

:farmer
"I agree with Sammy. I've got a 54" projection screen TV here in the booth and it was a foul ball plain as the nose on my mother's face."

Cowch44
07-02-2004, 05:46 PM
I think it might've been foul...idk I never saw it...all I know is Scammy basically took the call away....not the umps...

Aidan
07-02-2004, 05:56 PM
The wind blew it foul by just a foot or so. Sammy ran in and yelled at the officials and the play was overturned, and rightfully so; it wasn't a home run. At least Gload knocked in two runs in after that because he sure can't play right field.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:05 PM
The upper deck camera behind homeplate was inconclusive because you couldn't tell if the ball passed in front of or behind the foul pole. However the center field camera clearly showed the ball richocheting off something *above* the seats and *before* the retaining fence behind the seats. The only thing that could be is the FAIR POLE and that's what makes it a grand slam.

The umpire got it right the first time.

CubsfansareDRUNK
07-02-2004, 06:08 PM
At first it looked like a home run and it was until shammy argued it. Ozzie argued with some umps, but eventually, it was a foul ball. Could it have changed the game? Who knows?

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:08 PM
The upper deck camera behind homeplate was inconclusive because you couldn't tell if the ball passed in front of or behind the foul pole. However the center field camera clearly showed the ball richocheting off something *above* the seats and *before* the retaining fence behind the seats. The only thing that could be is the FAIR POLE and that's what makes it a grand slam.

The umpire got it right the first time.Dude, I watched the whole game. I hate to break it to you but you COULD see the ball cross over the foul pole which means it was a foul ball. It makes sense that it went foul because the wind was blowing every ball to the right side.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:12 PM
Dude, I watched the whole game. I hate to break it to you but you COULD see the ball cross over the foul pole which means it was a foul ball. It makes sense that it went foul because the wind was blowing every ball to the right side.
Dude, I don't care if the ball landed on your face and wiggled. Making your case by claiming "every ball" was going foul to the right is so contemptibly weak I have great reservations about your opinion about anything.

I based my opinion not on "every ball" but the exact one in question and two different camera angles that eliminated every other obstruction that could cause the initial richochet *except* the fair pole.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:16 PM
Dude, I don't care if the ball landed on your face and wiggled. Making your case by claiming "every ball" was going foul to the right is so contemptibly weak I have great reservations about your opinion about anything.

I based my opinion not on "every ball" but the exact one in question and two different camera angles that eliminated every other obstruction that could cause the initial richochet *except* the fair pole.I don't have to make the claim that every ball was pushed right by the wind. The ball never richocheted anywhere. On the first replay, you could clearly see the ball fly right of the foul pole the entire way. In fact, I could tell it was a foul ball when it was first hit by Gload. It sucks that Gload didn't get the grand slam but it was the correct call. If a Cubs player hit the same shot just foul, I would want the correct call to be made as well.

Grobber33
07-02-2004, 06:19 PM
None other than Ozzie Guillen himself said the Umpires got it right and that it was FOUL. He went out to complain to Reliford because that's what a good Manager does-even tho he knew the overturned call was the correct one. When Umpires see a guy like Ozzie defending their final call,it goes a long way and Ozzie will get plenty of respect from the guys in Blue for that.
Since I'm a guest on CLTV's Sportspage Sat nite at 9pm,I'm sure that play will come up-depending on how Saturday's game goes as well.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:20 PM
I don't have to make the claim that every ball was pushed right by the wind. The ball never richocheted anywhere. On the first replay, you could clearly see the ball the entire way fly right of the foul pole. I could tell it was a foul ball when it was first hit by Gload.That's funny. You claim you don't have to make a claim about "every ball" when that was your very first point 3 posts ago. :smile:

Hey, if you think you can accurately determine the exact trajectory of a ball from a camera angle over 300 feet behind the finish line (the fair pole) I'm going to take you to the race track and clean out your wallet with some match betting. All I need to do is sit you at the top of the home stretch and claim the horse that finished fourth "clearly" finished ahead of the one who won.

That's just about how convincing your argument is.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:21 PM
None other than Ozzie Guillen himself said the Umpires got it right and that it was FOUL. He went out to complain to Reliford because that's what a good Manager does-even tho he knew the overturned call was the correct one. When Umpires see a guy like Ozzie defending their final call,it goes a long way and Ozzie will get plenty of respect from the guys in Blue for that.
Since I'm a guest on CLTV's Sportspage Sat nite at 9pm,I'm sure that play will come up-depending on how Saturday's game goes as well.Thank you. I know PaleHoseGeorge just wants that hit to be a grand slam because it could have changed the game around but it was indeed a foul ball.

TornLabrum
07-02-2004, 06:21 PM
The upper deck camera behind homeplate was inconclusive because you couldn't tell if the ball passed in front of or behind the foul pole. However the center field camera clearly showed the ball richocheting off something *above* the seats and *before* the retaining fence behind the seats. The only thing that could be is the FAIR POLE and that's what makes it a grand slam.

The umpire got it right the first time.
George, you're looking through blinders. I slo-moed the slo-mo on my Replay TV and you could see the ball during it's entire flight from the camera that was used from the foul side. Had it been fair, it would have disappeared briefly from sight. It didn't. It was foul.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:24 PM
None other than Ozzie Guillen himself said the Umpires got it right and that it was FOUL. He went out to complain to Reliford because that's what a good Manager does-even tho he knew the overturned call was the correct one. When Umpires see a guy like Ozzie defending their final call,it goes a long way and Ozzie will get plenty of respect from the guys in Blue for that.
Since I'm a guest on CLTV's Sportspage Sat nite at 9pm,I'm sure that play will come up-depending on how Saturday's game goes as well.Wow, settle down! You act as if he wanted it to be foul or something. Yeah, we all would have liked it to be called fair but the replay shown on the TV showed it WAS foul. Game over. Hit a fair one tomorrow.George, you're looking through blinders. I slo-moed the slo-mo on my Replay TV and you could see the ball during it's entire flight from the camera that was used from the foul side. Had it been fair, it would have disappeared briefly from sight. It didn't. It was foul.You need to calm down PaleHoseGeorge. Clearly, other people saw it go foul as I did. It sucks but it wasn't a grand slam. The White Sox lost fair and square 6 - 2. A grand slam MAY HAVE turned the game around but they still could have lost 6 - 4 anyways.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:24 PM
George, you're looking through blinders. I slo-moed the slo-mo on my Replay TV and you could see the ball during it's entire flight from the camera that was used from the foul side. Had it been fair, it would have disappeared briefly from sight. It didn't. It was foul.
Did you slow-mo the center field angle? What caused the initial richochet? You can't tell from the home plate angle because the depth perception of the camera is lost. Ain't that right, Mr. Science?

:wink:

doublem23
07-02-2004, 06:25 PM
I don't have to make the claim that every ball was pushed right by the wind. The ball never richocheted anywhere. On the first replay, you could clearly see the ball fly right of the foul pole the entire way. In fact, I could tell it was a foul ball when it was first hit by Gload. It sucks that Gload didn't get the grand slam but it was the correct call.
Did they show a slow-mo replay of it? I only saw on replay later in the game and there was no way anyone tell if that was fair or foul; A the damn ball was way too blurry to know for sure and B) they barely slowed down the replay enough to tell. No controversy, I assume.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:28 PM
Did they show a slow-mo replay of it? I only saw on replay later in the game and there was no way anyone tell if that was fair or foul; A the damn ball was way too blurry to know for sure and B) they barely slowed down the replay enough to tell. No controversy, I assume.Yes, WGN showed a replay of the ball flying past the right field foul post. You could see the ball the whole way meaning it was a foul ball.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:28 PM
Excuse me if I'm unconvinced by our esteemed media poster and CLTV guest the Grobber on this one. How Ozzie could have an angle on this and know the truth is beyond me, too.

I'm matching camera angles from behind home plate and center field. There is an initial richochet and nothing but the fair pole could have caused it. Grand slam.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:39 PM
WHO CARES? The game is over. We lost. :rolleyes:
Indeed. Since what the first base umpire rules is really of no consequence if Sammy makes a big enough scene, why don't we just forfeit the games tomorrow and Sunday and enjoy our holiday weekend doing something more enjoyable than being screwed?

:wink:

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:40 PM
Excuse me if I'm unconvinced by our esteemed media poster and CLTV guest the Grobber on this one. How Ozzie could have an angle on this and know the truth is beyond me, too.

I'm matching camera angles from behind home plate and center field. There is an initial richochet and nothing but the fair pole could have caused it. Grand slam.I never saw a ricochet at all. I saw the typical "pulled ball" flight by a left-handed hitter just foul of the post.

BarbG
07-02-2004, 06:42 PM
I saw a ricochet and my Cubfan sister did too.

No news showed a replay, slowed down or not. Only a frame-by-frame could clear that one up.

But it was NOT "OBVIOUSLY a foul ball" as Chip reported. I didn't know the umpires needed Sammy to run all the way in simply to state the obvious.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:43 PM
I never saw a ricochet at all. I saw the typical "pulled ball" flight by a left-handed hitter just foul of the post.
Next time watch more carefully, and get more than one camera angle too. The center field camera gives you the depth perception to see what caused the first obstruction to the ball's flight. It wasn't the rear fence and it wasn't the seats either. That's the fair pole.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:43 PM
Indeed. Since what the first base umpire rules is really of no consequence if Sammy makes a big enough scene, why don't we just forfeit the games tomorrow and Sunday and enjoy our holiday weekend doing something more enjoyable than being screwed?

:wink:We managed 2 hits off of Zambrano and only 1 hit the rest of the way. Even if that ball was fair and a grand slam I still think the White Sox lose the game 6 - 4.
Next time watch more carefully, and get more than one camera angle too. The center field camera gives you the depth perception to see what caused the first obstruction to the ball's flight. It wasn't the rear fence and it wasn't the seats either. That's the fair pole.I watched every replay and the entire game and it never richocheted. Sorry, but you must have been seeing things since no one else here has made the same complaint as you.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:45 PM
I don't think we were screwed because I think the ball was foul but even if it was fair what is the point of worrying about it now when the game is over? Maybe, had our team hit the ball after this near grandslam it wouldn't have mattered. :?:
Well who can argue with that? :?:

:nandrolone
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:46 PM
Well who can argue with that? :?: 3 total hits in the game. The White Sox were not going to win this one, grand slam or no grand slam. Zambrano cinched it down and pitched lights out after the 1st.

Sufferin
07-02-2004, 06:48 PM
How many beers George has had? And how many had he already had when he saw this "ricochet". **** man, I though it was foul initially and the replays showed it was, get over it!:gulp:

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:50 PM
How many beers George has had? And how many had he already had when he saw this "ricochet". **** man, I though it was foul initially and the replays showed it was, get over it!:gulp:I know. Did anyone else see this "mysterious" richochet?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:50 PM
I watched every replay and the entire game and it never richocheted. Sorry, but you must have been seeing things since no one else here has made the same complaint as you.
Actually I haven't heard you make even one comment about the center field angle. You've droned on and on about what you've "clearly" seen about "every ball" going foul to the right, 100 percent of it based on a home plate angle that gives you the absolute worst depth perception to prove the point you keep trying (and failing) to make.

Why don't you describe the flight of the ball as seen by your expert eye from center field camera angle. Maybe then this discussion would go somewhere. Clearly the ball ricocheted off *something*. It didn't go sailing into orbit, did it?

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:53 PM
Actually I haven't heard you make even one comment about the center field angle.I watched every replay and the entire game and it never richocheted.'Nuff said???

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:53 PM
How many beers George has had? And how many had he already had when he saw this "ricochet". **** man, I though it was foul initially and the replays showed it was, get over it!
What did the ball hit? You're so sure what you saw, answer the question.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 06:54 PM
'Nuff said???What did the ball hit, Aidan? Come on, your eagle eye didn't miss anything.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 06:57 PM
What did the ball hit, Aidan? Come on, your eagle eye didn't miss anything.It hit nothing. It simply hooked foul to the right of the post.

BarbG
07-02-2004, 06:59 PM
I know. Did anyone else see this "mysterious" richochet?

Yes. I did.

The projection that we would have lost anyway (very well could be true) doesn't make a bad call OK.

If the call was against the Cubs we would have seen that shot a million times at every speed and angle by now.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 07:03 PM
The projection that we would have lost anyway (very well could be true) doesn't make a bad call OK.

If the call was against the Cubs we would have seen that shot a million times at every speed and angle by now.I agree. I just didn't see the ball ever richochet.

boat
07-02-2004, 07:13 PM
I slowed it down on my Tivo and definitely saw a downward ricochet on BOTH camera angles. Whether that would have changed the game, who knows.

FWIW - a friend of mine was down in the RF corner and he called right after it happened and said it hit the foulpole first.

flo-B-flo
07-02-2004, 07:32 PM
I didn't see the game live--I was at work but, i just saw the play on FSC's re-broadcast of the game. The ball was foul and hit a piece of fence attached to the fair pole causing it to ricochet downward.

SaltyPretzel
07-02-2004, 07:44 PM
What did the ball hit? You're so sure what you saw, answer the question.
The foul poles at Wrigley are also flag poles. I think it hit a piece of rope used to hoist the Billy Williams #26 flag.

Blob
07-02-2004, 07:52 PM
I just watched the replay of the game. It does appear to hit something, which would probably be the foul pole...It also might have been a piece of string I saw hanging there...

itsnotrequired
07-02-2004, 08:16 PM
Man, I'm suprised this is such a debate! When I first saw it on TV, I thought "Damn, he just missed it." I was SHOCKED that they ruled it fair. A grand slam would have been an awesome way to start the game but I have to say, that thing looked foul. Sammy whining or not, it just wasn't a fair ball.

Nice work coming back with the 2 RBI double. Too bad that was all Gload was able to accomplish in the game. Shoddy fielding is an understatement...

Lip Man 1
07-02-2004, 08:20 PM
To me it looked like the ball was foul...good call. Even if it was fair which would have changed the game, the Sox were shut down after the first inning.

Reminds me of that game a few years ago (2000?) when Ordonez's ball which would have tied the game or put the Sox up got 'lost' in the right field ivy.

Lip

CHISOXFAN13
07-02-2004, 08:21 PM
To me it looked like the ball was foul...good call. Even if it was fair which would have changed the game, the Sox were shut down after the first inning.

Reminds me of that game a few years ago (2000?) when Ordonez's ball which would have tied the game or put the Sox up got 'lost' in the right field ivy.

Lip
It was 1998 and we got swept, so hopefully the comparisons end there!

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 08:35 PM
Just for the record, the foul poles are in FAIR TERRITORY, including 100 percent of that fence that you guys finally admit the ball hit. That's why they are properly called FAIR poles.

Grand slam.

The Sox lost, but that doesn't change the fact the umpires blew the call. It also doesn't change the fact Zambrano could easily have been chased early trying to pitch a full game after getting tattooed for 4 or more runs the very first inning. We'll never know...

Fungo
07-02-2004, 08:36 PM
We managed 2 hits off of Zambrano and only 1 hit the rest of the way. Even if that ball was fair and a grand slam I still think the White Sox lose the game 6 - 4.This is assinine. It changes the whole complexion of the game. If you think that the game plays out exactly like it would have with the call being overturned and Gload getting a double on the next pitch then you know nothing.

I didn't see the game live--I was at work but, i just saw the play on FSC's re-broadcast of the game. The ball was foul and hit a piece of fence attached to the fair pole causing it to ricochet downward.If this is the case then the ball was fair.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 08:48 PM
This is assinine. It changes the whole complexion of the game. If you think that the game plays out exactly like it would have with the call being overturned and Gload getting a double on the next pitch then you know nothing.Take it easy there spanky. Did you not watch the game? The White Sox only managed 2 hits on Zambrano. He was pretty much lights out. So instead of a 4 - 0 lead we had a 2 - 0 lead in the 1st inning. I still think Zambrano was locked in regardless. We only managed 2 runs against Santana on Thursday. Good pitching almost always beats good hitting.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 08:59 PM
It hit nothing. It simply hooked foul to the right of the post.
Ah yes, the baseball went sailing through a cloud and hit nothing. It's now in outer space in a low Earth orbit, clearly a foul ball.

It hit *something* Aidan and if it wasn't so bloody obvious that you can't even be sure about this essential point I might be willing to believe you have the foggiest idea what happened by the right field fair pole this afternoon.

Fungo
07-02-2004, 09:01 PM
Take it easy there spanky. Did you not watch the game? The White Sox only managed 2 hits on Zambrano. He was pretty much lights out. So instead of a 4 - 0 lead we had a 2 - 0 lead in the 1st inning. I still think Zambrano was locked in regardless. We only managed 2 runs against Santana on Thursday. Good pitching almost always beats good hitting.Yeah, I watched the game, thanks for asking. The fact is that Zambrano is a maniac of the mound. A grand slam in the first could have very easily rattled him. We'll never know, it could have gone either way. My point is that it changes the whole complexion of the game. 2 runs is 2 runs. "Good pitching almost always beats good hitting" - that's why they play the games. According to your logic, any time Pedro, Prior, Randy Johnson, Josh Becket, etc., pitches they may as well not play the game and chalk up a win for their team. Unreal.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 09:02 PM
Ah yes, the baseball went sailing through a cloud and hit nothing. It's now in outer space in a low Earth orbit, clearly a foul ball.

It hit *something* Aidan and if it wasn't so bloody obvious that you can't even be sure about this essential point I might be willing to believe you have the foggiest idea what happened by the right field fair pole this afternoon.Once again, I never saw it hit anything. I saw the ball fly past the pole going foul. If you want to keep proving yourself to be a jackass and whining over "THE GRAND SLAM SLAM THAT NEVER WAS" go ahead. The fact is that the Sox got outplayed by a good pitcher and Loaiza wasn't at his best. Our defense wasn't too impressive either.
"Good pitching almost always beats good hitting" - that's why they play the games. According to your logic, any time Pedro, Prior, Randy Johnson, Josh Becket, etc., pitches they may as well not play the game and chalk up a win for their team. Unreal.Notice, I said "almost always". I never said good pitching ALWAYS beats good hitting.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:05 PM
Once again, I never saw it hit anything. I saw the ball fly past the pole going foul. If you want to keep proving yourself to be a jackass and whining over "THE GRAND SLAM SLAM THAT NEVER WAS" go ahead. The fact is that the Sox got outplayed by a good pitcher and Loaiza wasn't at his best.
The only one making an ass of himself is you, Aidan. You're the one claiming the ball never hit *anything* when the simplest law of physics says it most definitely hit something. You don't know the answer. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 09:07 PM
The only one making an ass of himself is you, Aidan. You're the one claiming the ball never hit *anything* when the simplest law of physics says it most definitely hit something. You don't know the answer. You're just too pig-headed to admit it.Nope, I watched every replay and never saw the ball ricochet. You can call me "pig-headed" all you want but you aren't going to change what I saw.

Regardless, it's a loss. Hopefully, Aramis Ramirez will be out for the next two games and they will be forced to use Ramon Martinez at 3B and Rey Ordonez at SS. That would weaken their lineup quite a bit. And I hope that Diaz has another great game like he did last week.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:07 PM
God, what are you a 6 year old that needs to have the last word? WE LOST... GET OVER IT!
Umm... what does this have to do with this discussion?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:10 PM
Nope, I watched every replay and never saw the ball ricochet. You can call me "pig-headed" all you want but you aren't going to change what I saw.
What you saw was nothing. That's what makes your opinion pigheaded. An object traveling through space must eventually be stopped by something but you don't know what. Admit it.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 09:11 PM
What you saw was nothing. That's what makes your opinion pigheaded. An object traveling through space must eventually be stopped by something but you don't know what. Admit it.I'm sorry, I didn't know that "what you saw" and your opinion was the only one that counts. Maybe you should ump tomorrow's game. Until then, keep rewinding your TIVO in hopes that it will bring about a White Sox win for today.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:15 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't know that "what you saw" and your opinion was the only one that counts. Maybe you should ump tomorrow's game. Until then, keep rewinding your TIVO in hopes that it will bring about a White Sox win for today.
LOL! You still won't admit it.

You don't know jack about that ball. You think you know, and you've tried desperately to convince the feeble-minded to see it your way, but you don't even know where that damn ball landed.

Some eagle eye you've proven yourself to be.

Fungo
07-02-2004, 09:16 PM
PHG, looks like you'd be better off pounding sand. The new guy with the new computer fails to recognize the difference between a 4-0 lead and a 2-0 lead in the 1st. A game changing call.

We go back to work tomorrow. Go Sox !!

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:17 PM
Because you have some obsessive need here to convince everyone that the ball was fair when it doesn't matter, not to mention you're doing it in an annoyingly aggressive manner. I think that was pretty clear.
Actually I believe you're the one who has been shouting and calling me names. That's why we're sending you to the Roadhouse where your little tantrum can make friends with everyone else's.

beckett21
07-02-2004, 09:17 PM
Just for the record, the foul poles are in FAIR TERRITORY, including 100 percent of that fence that you guys finally admit the ball hit. That's why they are properly called FAIR poles.

Grand slam.

The Sox lost, but that doesn't change the fact the umpires blew the call. It also doesn't change the fact Zambrano could easily have been chased early trying to pitch a full game after getting tattooed for 4 or more runs the very first inning. We'll never know...
FWIW I saw it the same way as you did, PHG. I too saw the *ricochet.* As you and Fungo clearly state, this changes the whole complexion of the game. It changes every late inning situation, so it would have been an ENTIRELY different ballgame. It's a lot different playing for one or two runs than for four, not to mention we most likely would not have been subjected to the pitching stylings of one Jon Adkins.

Whether or not anyone believes it was fair or foul, there is NO DOUBT that it is a whole different ballgame which would have been played differently, therefore possibly affecting the outcome. But hey, it's over. Go get 'em tomorrow.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 09:19 PM
LOL! You still won't admit it.

You don't know jack about that ball. You think you know, and you've tried desperately to convince the feeble-minded to see it your way, but you don't even know where that damn ball landed.

Some eagle eye you've proven yourself to be.MWAHAHAHA!!! Yes, it is my goal in life to prove to everyone that the ball was indeed foul. You got me... :rolleyes:

The truth is, either way it is a loss and I am unhappy about that. I, unlike you will let others form their own opinions. I really don't care what other people think. I saw it go foul and believe the correct call was made. I am more worried about Felix Diaz having a good start tomorrow against what will hopefully be a less potent Cubs offense with Aramis Ramirez out and possibly Ramon Martinez at 3B and Rey Ordonez at SS.
PHG, looks like you'd be better off pounding sand. The new guy with the new computer fails to recognize the difference between a 4-0 lead and a 2-0 lead in the 1st. A game changing call.I'm sorry I don't have 303 posts like you do Mr. Smarty Man. Maybe you shouldn't just assume that others have no knowledge of computers. For the record, I graduated from DePaul University with a Computer Science degree. Just because I am new to these forums doesn't mean I'm computer-illiterate.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:26 PM
MWAHAHAHA!!! Yes, it is my goal in life to prove to everyone that the ball was indeed foul. You got me... :rolleyes:

The truth is, either way it is a loss and I am unhappy about that. I, unlike you will let others form their own opinions. I really don't care what other people think. I saw it go foul and believe the correct call was made. I am more worried about Felix Diaz having a good start tomorrow against what will hopefully be a less potent Cubs offense with Aramis Ramirez out and possibly Ramon Martinez at 3B and Rey Ordonez at SS.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However posting your opinion here opens it to debate. If you could tell any of us where that ball landed on the foul path you keep insisting you saw, your opinion might count for more. As it is your opinion doesn't count for jack.

Nobody has doubted we lost the game. We're debating whether the umpires got this critical first inning call right. Listening to the flimsy reasoning I've read here, I'm more convinced than ever just how critical their error truly was.

Aidan
07-02-2004, 09:30 PM
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However posting your opinion here opens it to debate. If you could tell any of us where that ball landed on the foul path you keep insisting you saw, your opinion might count for more. As it is your opinion doesn't count for jack.

Nobody has doubted we lost the game. We're debating whether the umpires got this critical first inning call right. Listening to the flimsy reasoning I've read here, I'm more convinced than ever just how critical their error truly was.I believe there is a chain-link fence behind the right field bleachers.

Fungo
07-02-2004, 09:34 PM
For the record, I graduated from DePaul University with a Computer Science degree.We're all happy for you

Maybe you shouldn't just assume that others have no knowledge of computers.no, no, no. I was assuming you had no knowledge of baseball. Sorry for the confusion Mr. Computer Science degree from DePaul University haver <Bud Light jingle>

Kilroy
07-02-2004, 09:34 PM
Blob and SaltyPretzel have it right. The ball hit the rope used to hoist the flags on the pole. My wife and I just watched it. We saw it immediately in the first replay. Unless there's a ground rule that makes anything connected to the foul poles part of the foul poles, or fair poles, then this was a foul ball all the way.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 09:39 PM
I believe there is a chain-link fence behind the right field bleachers.
YES! You're absolutely correct. That fence is at least 10 feet behind the fair pole. The home plate camera angle hides the depth, but it is clearly visible from the center field angle.

Watch the replay from the center field angle. The long arc of the ball travels from right to left in a smooth line until it bounces and falls down. It never comes anywhere near that chain-link fence. In fact it strikes the obstruction several feet above the heads of the fans seated in the front row. Meanwhile the home plate angle eliminates the possibility it might have hit the seats several rows up from the front row along the foul line.

It was the fair pole the ball struck. There is no other obstruction that could have caused that bounce.

Kilroy
07-02-2004, 09:57 PM
It was the fair pole the ball struck. There is no other obstruction that could have caused that bounce.
G, unless it hit the pole outside the view of the camera, I couldn't see it. I did see it hit rope tho. You can see it from that cross field angle, the rope is dangling, and then it snaps taut when the ball passes. If it hit the pole, my wife and I couldn't see it...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2004, 10:04 PM
G, unless it hit the pole outside the view of the camera, I couldn't see it. I did see it hit rope tho. You can see it from that cross field angle, the rope is dangling, and then it snaps taut when the ball passes. If it hit the pole, my wife and I couldn't see it...Well, I don't know anything about a rope attached to the fair pole. That's an interesting question for the Urinal's ground rules. How can an umpire be expected to discern the difference between a yellow pole in "fair" territory and a slender rope just an inch or two away that is (allegedly) in "foul" territory? That would make no sense.

You would almost have to make the rope part of fair territory or why even bother putting up fair poles?

:?:

We agree it hit something besides the seats or the chain-link fence along Sheffield Avenue. Maybe the Ghost of Harry reached out and stopped the ball with a can of Budweiser!

:tongue:

TornLabrum
07-02-2004, 10:14 PM
Actually I haven't heard you make even one comment about the center field angle. You've droned on and on about what you've "clearly" seen about "every ball" going foul to the right, 100 percent of it based on a home plate angle that gives you the absolute worst depth perception to prove the point you keep trying (and failing) to make.

Why don't you describe the flight of the ball as seen by your expert eye from center field camera angle. Maybe then this discussion would go somewhere. Clearly the ball ricocheted off *something*. It didn't go sailing into orbit, did it?
I saw the CF replay but didn't slow it down. I didn't see a ricochet from that angle either.

gobears1987
07-02-2004, 10:35 PM
I will say as a Sox fan that I think it was unfortunately foul. I wish it was fair and wish the umps got it wrong.

Lip Man 1
07-02-2004, 11:31 PM
They showed different angles on the WGN sports tonight with Rich King and it did hit that rope.

Now what the ground rules are, I don't know, but since the rope is to the right of the pole I am assuming it's a foul ball.

Good call.

Lip

SaltyPretzel
07-02-2004, 11:51 PM
They showed different angles on the WGN sports tonight with Rich King and it did hit that rope.

Now what the ground rules are, I don't know, but since the rope is to the right of the pole I am assuming it's a foul ball.

Good call.

Lip
We can go on forever on this. If the rope was in fair territory, it would be a ground rule double. If not, it would be a foul ball. Considering that we would have scored only two runs on a ground rule double and the actual double that Gload hit, it really doesn't make a difference since, from what is saw, it didn't hit the foul pole. **** it, lets get them tomorrow.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-03-2004, 05:43 AM
We can go on forever on this. If the rope was in fair territory, it would be a ground rule double. If not, it would be a foul ball. Considering that we would have scored only two runs on a ground rule double and the actual double that Gload hit, it really doesn't make a difference since, from what is saw, it didn't hit the foul pole. **** it, lets get them tomorrow.Not to place you under cross-examination, but... :cool:

Do you know the Urinal's ground rules? Or are you simply claiming to think logically about this?

If it is logic, how do you explain the logic of having a "foul" rope attached to a "fair" pole when the entire point of having a fair pole is to help, not hinder, an umpire tell what is fair vs. foul? There is no logic in that, is there? Why even have a fair pole if this were the case?

Furthermore, how would hitting a rope in "foul" territory now be ruled a ground rule double? Where is the logic in that? A ball hit just an inch to the left is clearly a home run because the pole defines what is fair. Anything to the right of the pole is foul, not a ground rule double. Are you just making this stuff up?

I admit I'm amused by the notion that the umpires got the call wrong twice. The first base umpire who was closest to the ball called it a home run, and Sammy and the other umpires called it foul. They were both wrong, it was a ground rule double??? :?:

I'm pretty sure we all agree Zambrano was getting pummeled in that first inning. He wasn't settled on the mound and had the bases loaded facing Gload. Later he seemed invincible. That reversed grand slam call made a huge difference -- and it didn't happen until *after* a known cheater got the umpires to reverse a call by the umpire who was closest to the play and who was the only one with the proper angle to make the right call.

It's an imperfect world filled with wall weeds and cheaters. That's baseball, but it doesn't mean we have to like it. :mad:

Finally, I agree the team simply needs to play 'em tough today and tomorrow.
:gulp:

ndgt10
07-03-2004, 07:43 AM
For the record, I graduated from DePaul University with a Computer Science degree.
"Aidan, are you an ex-baseball player with a PhD in Physics?"

"No Ndgt10, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!"

white sox bill
07-03-2004, 07:55 AM
Hey do I have to lock this thread:smile: ? You people have taken several days off your life, via raising blood pressure, arguing moot points. Shammy made the call, now he would NEVER lie now would he:?: ?

hawkjt
07-03-2004, 09:12 AM
There is definitely a home-field advantage in these cases. When Crede's homer was incorrectly taken away last year in Blatimore there was no reaction from fans like yesterday. That ball was clearly fair for Joe but no other ump chose to overrule the third base ump who was horrible. Yesterday the first base ump meekly submitted to the others. Carlos and Maggs have also lost legit homers on the road. Sucks cuz that would have changed the whole complexion of the game.

TornLabrum
07-03-2004, 09:40 AM
There is definitely a home-field advantage in these cases. When Crede's homer was incorrectly taken away last year in Blatimore there was no reaction from fans like yesterday. That ball was clearly fair for Joe but no other ump chose to overrule the third base ump who was horrible. Yesterday the first base ump meekly submitted to the others. Carlos and Maggs have also lost legit homers on the road. Sucks cuz that would have changed the whole complexion of the game.
In the case of Crede's homer, the third base umpire was also the crew chief, Eric Cooper. His crew is widely regarded as the worst in MLB.

skobabe8
07-03-2004, 11:13 AM
The only question is if the wire that runs up the fair/foul pole is part of the fair/foul pole. If it is, grand slam, because it was clear that it hit that wire. If not, foul ball I guess. You have to know the ground rules, and its fair to say that probably no one here knows them exactly.

TornLabrum
07-03-2004, 11:40 AM
The only question is if the wire that runs up the fair/foul pole is part of the fair/foul pole. If it is, grand slam, because it was clear that it hit that wire. If not, foul ball I guess. You have to know the ground rules, and its fair to say that probably no one here knows them exactly.
I think even I can answer it. The pole itself is in fair territory. If it strikes any part of the pole, the ball is fair. If it strikes the screen attached on the fair side of the pole, the ball is fair. If it hits anything on the foul side of the pole itself, the ball is foul. The rope or wire or whatever it is is not the pole.

WSox8404
07-03-2004, 11:41 AM
Did you slow-mo the center field angle? What caused the initial richochet? You can't tell from the home plate angle because the depth perception of the camera is lost. Ain't that right, Mr. Science?

:wink:
Pale you are right. I was watching the replays and it did go foul. But only after it doinked off of the pole. Oh well.

surfdudes
07-03-2004, 04:39 PM
Did you slow-mo the center field angle? What caused the initial richochet? You can't tell from the home plate angle because the depth perception of the camera is lost. Ain't that right, Mr. Science?

:wink:
LOL!!!!

From here in San Diego it appeared inconclusive, but after noting that the Barometer had fallen below 29, and the Ball was hit during a Pacific Coast Ebb tide, and that the San Andreas fault line was in dormancy at that moment, I would have to say that the Sox still lost the game. I checked again the following morning in the paper and it was still aloss.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-03-2004, 07:27 PM
LOL!!!!

From here in San Diego it appeared inconclusive, but after noting that the Barometer had fallen below 29, and the Ball was hit during a Pacific Coast Ebb tide, and that the San Andreas fault line was in dormancy at that moment, I would have to say that the Sox still lost the game. I checked again the following morning in the paper and it was still aloss.
The hallucinogenic effects of glue-sniffing, no doubt.

OEO Magglio
07-03-2004, 08:03 PM
Wow. To tell you guys the truth from the one replay I saw it looked foul to me but like I said I only saw one replay and it wasn't a great angle that they showed so I really have no idea but it does sound like it hit that wire. Today when I was at the game, some guys sitting behind us said it did definitely hit the wire. So now is that fair or foul? You'd think it would have to be fair because it is part of the pole. If that ball was indeed fair that was a huge miscall because zambrano is such a nut there is probably more damage done.

nasox
07-03-2004, 09:12 PM
The hallucinogenic effects of glue-sniffing, no doubt.
Represent!

PaleHoseGeorge
07-03-2004, 09:19 PM
It's seems long ago that we took 2 of 3 from these dopes and were pounding one of their ace pitchers for 4 runs in the very first inning. That blown call is looming even larger now as the turning point of the six games.

Yeah, but Ozzie thinks the umpires got the call right so what difference does it make...

Lip Man 1
07-03-2004, 10:40 PM
George:

When one of your best hitters isn't playing, you lose your DH AND the pitcher has to bat (and the opposition has some pretty good pitchers to boot) it's tough, very tough to score runs period.

This is where the Ross Gload's, Timo Perez's and Jamie Burke's of the world have to step up and produce don't you think?

Lip

OEO Magglio
07-03-2004, 10:48 PM
Lip, these games in national league parks is when it really hurts not having maggs. No frank, no maggs and the pitcher batting makes the offense so much weaker it's not even funny. Timo has done a great job of stepping up and hitting well but he's obviously not maggs or frank so these national league games are really difficult to deal with especially with out magglio.

NorthSideDroolz
07-04-2004, 02:36 AM
I was unable to watch the game but I heard a slam by Gload was overturned? I'm wondering what are people's take on this?
:troll
Anybody who says that it was a fair ball is not taking it in the tailpipe from Sammy and Chimp. I would do anything those men tell me to do.

surfdudes
07-04-2004, 05:10 AM
The hallucinogenic effects of glue-sniffing, no doubt.
LOL! Checked again this morning. It still says the Sox lost......
The thing that I'm still stuck on is how Sosa can immedietly influence the head umpire after same said head umpire called it a grand slam to begin with??

PaleHoseGeorge
07-04-2004, 09:10 AM
LOL! Checked again this morning. It still says the Sox lost......
The thing that I'm still stuck on is how Sosa can immedietly influence the head umpire after same said head umpire called it a grand slam to begin with??
How many game do you suppose the Sox win when Sammy is the defacto umpire? The first base umpire wasn't overruled by the other umpires until *after* Sammy ran in from right field and pitched a fit.

Some people have a hard time separating the issues. Whether the Sox still lost is hardly relevant to 5+ pages discussing where the ball landed. The umpires blew the call.

Only someone with a feeble mind would believe on its face what Sammy and Chimp told them to believe about that ball. That's why we're discussing it. Surprise surprise... it turns out Sammy screwed over the umpires and Chimp was right there to be cheerleader for the audience at home, too.

If you want to rant about the Sox losing, I suggest you get your own thread for your pet issue. If this thread pisses you off so much, why not stop reading it? Believe me, you'll be doing everyone a favor.

Bruck35
07-04-2004, 09:25 AM
How many game do you suppose the Sox win when Sammy is the defacto umpire? The first base umpire wasn't overruled by the other umpires until *after* Sammy ran in from right field and pitched a fit.

Some people have a hard time separating the issues. Whether the Sox still lost is hardly relevant to 5+ pages discussing where the ball landed. The umpires blew the call.

Only someone with a feeble mind would believe on its face what Sammy and Chimp told them to believe about that ball. That's why we're discussing it. Surprise surprise... it turns out Sammy screwed over the umpires and Chimp was right there to be cheerleader for the audience at home, too.

If you want to rant about the Sox losing, I suggest you get your own thread for your pet issue. If this thread pisses you off so much, why not stop reading it? Believe me, you'll be doing everyone a favor.

I was at the game sitting about even with the third base bag, 7 rows up in the upper deck. I saw the flight path of the ball the entire way, and from my viewpoint it was easy to see the ball pass in front of the foul pole on the way out of the stadium.

HOWEVER, I also am quite confident it changed trajectory ever so slightly when it passed in front of the pole, leading me to believe it should've been ruled a fair ball. Obviously I didn't benefit from seeing a replay, and my opinion is certainly biased in one direction, but I'd have to agree with the posters who say the ball changed direction...maybe it indeed was from the wire hanging down from the poll.

Here's my question: Why don't they change the shape of the foul pole to being rectangular instead of round. If the pole had 4 flat sides and the ball was curving away from it but still nicked it, it would have substantially changed the ball's flight path, making it obvious for all to see. But with a round foul pole, the ball could graze the side of it and it would be very difficult to see a change in its flight path. If the ball did hit the wire, then a 4-sided foul pole wouldn't change anything, but who knows.

Though that change would only effect probably around .00001% of the games played, it sure could make a huge difference in that game.

Thoughts?

MrRoboto83
07-04-2004, 05:55 PM
i think the ball hit the foul poll making it a GS.