PDA

View Full Version : Clarification of Dropped 3rd-Strike Call


Polack
10-12-2005, 11:01 PM
I was amazed that the anouncers tonight tried to make this game's end a controversy. Tim McCarver, as a catcher, should realize that Josh Paul made a huge error by rolling the ball back to the mound. Whether it was arrogance or ignorance, it was a mistake.

The catcher is awarded a putout for every strikeout. It is the catcher's responsibility to finish the play. How many times have we seen a catcher tag a batter in the butt after the batter swung at strike three and tipped the ball into the catcher's mitt when there was little question as to whether the ball hit the ground first? Pierszynski was called out, took a step back toward the Sox dugout, then as a catcher, realized that Josh Paul neglected to finish the play. Pierszynski ran to first. That is smart baseball. McCarver's argument that Josh Paul MUST have caught the ball because he rolled it back to the mound is disingenuous.

How many times have we seen a batter take off to first thinking he has just drawn a walk get called back?

BNLSox
10-12-2005, 11:04 PM
Tim was a complete ass in his broadcast. It was like he wanted us to suffer instead of enjoy what was a majorly heads up move by AJ, a great jump by Ozuna, and a super clutch hit by Crede.

He never had any qualms about the doubled off guy at second, the strike outs looking out of the zone, or a number of other very important questionable calls. Tim should be shifted to the NL games because he's starting to seem like he's cheering for the Angels, and well that ain't cool for a national broadcast!

Chips
10-12-2005, 11:05 PM
AJ said so himself while be interviewed that a similair situation happened while he was behind the plate in San Fran, you keep playing until the ump calls you out.

kjhanson
10-12-2005, 11:25 PM
Baseball Tonite and Fox both vehemently argued that Eddings called A.J. out on the third strike; hence causing the players to run off the field and for Josh Paul to toss the ball back to the mound. Not so fast my friends (I use "friends" loosely when talking about FOX and ESPN)... IHSA Umpire's View (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-051012umpireletter,1,6913870.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)

"Doug Eddings did NOT call Pierzynski out at the plate on a strikeout—his mechanic was clearly nothing more than him indicating a strike."

JackParkman
10-12-2005, 11:26 PM
Baseball Tonite and Fox both vehemently argued that Eddings called A.J. out on the third strike; hence causing the players to run off the field and for Josh Paul to toss the ball back to the mound. Not so fast my friends (I use "friends" loosely when talking about FOX and ESPN)... IHSA Umpire's View (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-051012umpireletter,1,6913870.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)

In fairness to ESPN, Kruk and, to a lesser extent Reynolds, after the game said they didn't think Eddings called AJ out.

chaerulez
10-12-2005, 11:27 PM
In fairness to ESPN, Kruk and, to a lesser extent Reynolds, after the game said they didn't think Eddings called AJ out.

In their closing BT segement, they kept insisting the fist pump meant out. They are all idiots, because Jerry Crawford said in the post game that it was a STRIKE call not an OUT call.

kjhanson
10-12-2005, 11:29 PM
In fairness to ESPN, Kruk and, to a lesser extent Reynolds, after the game said they didn't think Eddings called AJ out.

Reynolds to a lesser extent is an understatement. He was practically in tears trying to describe that the fist meant an out to Darin Erstad and the rest of the Angels.

saltwater farmer
10-12-2005, 11:37 PM
[QUOTE=kjhanson]Baseball Tonite and Fox both vehemently argued that Eddings called A.J. out on the third strike; hence causing the players to run off the field and for Josh Paul to toss the ball back to the mound.]

you're wrong. Reynolds and Kruk both said it was confusing because most people assume the fist means "out," but he went on to say that this ump makes the fist on EVERY strike, even first or second strikes. Bottom line, they both said, was that Josh P screwed up by taking it for granted. As a ballplayer, you are taught to keep playing until you HEAR a call. Harold and Kruk put this "controversy" to rest in a matter of 30 seconds.

saltwater farmer
10-12-2005, 11:37 PM
they even said that Paul couldn't see the fist pump.

kjhanson
10-12-2005, 11:42 PM
[QUOTE=kjhanson]Baseball Tonite and Fox both vehemently argued that Eddings called A.J. out on the third strike; hence causing the players to run off the field and for Josh Paul to toss the ball back to the mound.]

you're wrong. Reynolds and Kruk both said it was confusing because most people assume the fist means "out," but he went on to say that this ump makes the fist on EVERY strike, even first or second strikes. Bottom line, they both said, was that Josh P screwed up by taking it for granted. As a ballplayer, you are taught to keep playing until you HEAR a call. Harold and Kruk put this "controversy" to rest in a matter of 30 seconds.

Had you watched the very first recap on ESPN, you would have seen the same thing. Currently, Kruk and Reynolds are making their fourth stance on the position at hand. Each subsequent time they analyze they play they are backing further and further away from their original comments. Originally they stated it was a terrible call and the first means out. After having re-analyzed the play, they have re-examined their position and have made some very objective comments about the situation.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-12-2005, 11:43 PM
So basically Josh Paul ****ed up and ESPN is making excuses for him?

Say it ain't so!
:cool:

:versatile
"I've sucked my entire career. What's the surprise here?"

UofCSoxFan
10-12-2005, 11:43 PM
they even said that Paul couldn't see the fist pump.

Amen


Paul screwed up....the fist pump is moot. Everyone else in the world may have seen it...but there is no way Paul did so it can't be used as an excuse.

awesomefan
10-12-2005, 11:45 PM
I understand the Umpires call completely after seeing the replay. The ball did appear to jump up into Josh Paul's glove after hitting the ground.

Regardless, anytime the catch is questionable, the catcher should tag the batter and Josh Paul did NOT tag AJ.

This is a play that is done routinely in every ballgame. Nothing that unusual about the play tonight. Josh Paul messed up...plain & simple.

You see batters run down to 1st base alot of times in games after the 3rd strike is called & make the catcher try to throw them OUT in just this situation.:bandance:

saltwater farmer
10-12-2005, 11:47 PM
Had you watched the very first recap on ESPN, you would have seen the same thing. Currently, Kruk and Reynolds are making their fourth stance on the position at hand. Each subsequent time they analyze they play they are backing further and further away from their original comments. Originally they stated it was a terrible call and the first means out. After having re-analyzed the play, they have re-examined their position and have made some very objective comments about the situation.[/QUOTE]

I saw the 11pm Baseball Tonight. I thought they explained the play perfectly. Apologies all around if I offended anyone based on earlier comments I didn't hear/ see.
Bottom line: Sox win, Buehrle is the man, and Crede is clutch.

kevingrt
10-13-2005, 12:04 AM
Bottom line: Sox win, Buehrle is the man, and Crede is clutch.

Simply put and brilliantly put

kevingrt
10-13-2005, 12:09 AM
AJ said so himself while be interviewed that a similair situation happened while he was behind the plate in San Fran, you keep playing until the ump calls you out.

Experience pays off like non-other!!! Go AJ P!

DrCrawdad
10-13-2005, 12:34 AM
First Tony Graffanino now Josh Paul. IIRC didn't Josh Paul figure prominently in some sort of mental gaffe in game 2 of the '00 ALDS vs. Seattle, a team managed by Lou Piniella?

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 12:48 AM
I'm surprized the Cubune hasn't stepped in in behalf of their former star columnist and basepaths phenom ... Josh Paul

gimme a break!

MHOUSE
10-13-2005, 12:52 AM
Are there any former White Sox on the Astros/Cardinals that could help us on our way? Maybe Cal Eldred blows up in a few key relief situations? That's the only one I can think of.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-13-2005, 01:00 AM
[QUOTE=PaleHoseGeorge]So basically Josh Paul ****ed up and ESPN is making excuses for him?

Say it ain't so!
:cool:

[QUOTE]

I assume ESPN Hollywood prefers the California Angels to advance - better celebrities and all that.

Bite me ESPN!

TDog
10-13-2005, 01:13 AM
So basically Josh Paul ****ed up and ESPN is making excuses for him? ...

Fred Merkle thought he had a good excuse when his baserunning error allowed the Cubs to get into the 1908 World Series by forcing a playoff game that his Giants lost.

No one cared then and they really don't care almost a half century after Merkle's death.

AJ said after the game (which I missed, sorry) that he never heard the umpire say "out." Paul probably didn't either.

Domeshot17
10-13-2005, 01:16 AM
Few thoughts as I just got home from the game

The fist was his strike call all game

On a PK at bat, drop 3rd strike, he made the fist for strike 3, Molina tagged him as PK argued, and he rung him up like a strike out ( I had assumed he was tossed from the game on the 3rd motion, but fans around me informed me that he was OUT call previous was strike call).

I think a HUGE thing being over looked was this was Pauls first inning catching for the ump. And while his mechanics are confusing, they are consistent.

SECOND

That call did not blow the game, it put a runner on first with 2 outs, Paul failed to make a throw on Pablo, and Escobar failed to make a quality 2 strike pitch. It may have been controversial, but it was consistent.

And whoever asked the question on who is on the NL teams ex white sox, I asked my girl friends dad the same question, and we came up with Tony LaRussa, maybe he makes a huge coaching blunder .

voodoochile
10-13-2005, 01:36 AM
they even said that Paul couldn't see the fist pump.

They went on to say that AJ clearly heard or noticed something different from the rest of the game that told him to run.

They also noted that on an earlier play when AJ dropped one and tagged the batter after picking the pitch out of the dirt, the ump made two fist pumps. The first signaled strike and the second signaled out.

I agree the fist pump is confusing, but as SF points out above, Paul couldn't see that fist and he should have kept playing until he knew AJ was out.

RockyMtnSoxFan
10-13-2005, 02:04 AM
I've read several statements to the effect of "The ump called him out, so he's out, period." Are they trying to say that the ump can't reverse his own call? Imagine that it was more obvious from the camera's point of view that the ball bounced and got away, and the ump initially called it an out, then realized that the ball was still rolling. Would the batter still be out if the umpire reversed his call in that case? It seems to me that California apologists are trying to combine several lines of argument in the hope that the combined effect will make them right. They are saying that the ball was caught and the ump called him out, both dubious statements at best.

voodoochile
10-13-2005, 02:12 AM
I've read several statements to the effect of "The ump called him out, so he's out, period." Are they trying to say that the ump can't reverse his own call? Imagine that it was more obvious from the camera's point of view that the ball bounced and got away, and the ump initially called it an out, then realized that the ball was still rolling. Would the batter still be out if the umpire reversed his call in that case? It seems to me that California apologists are trying to combine several lines of argument in the hope that the combined effect will make them right. They are saying that the ball was caught and the ump called him out, both dubious statements at best.

The key word to me in that sentence is "call" Umps do back up their hand gestures with verbal confirmation. In fact I think they are required to. Something made AJ take off for first when every other player on the field was headed for the dugout. I don't think the ump said the word "out".

go_go_whitesox
10-13-2005, 02:13 AM
The replay clearly showed a change in the direction of the ball BEFORE it landed in the catcher's mitt. This change in direction was noted by the umpires in the post-game press conference.

To sum it up, the umpires got it right...and the Sox won the game. Josh Paul should have tagged Pierzynski...he blew it.

Go Go Sox!

SoxandtheCityTee
10-13-2005, 04:51 AM
On ESPN's overnight show Jason Smith ran an interview with Blum which he teased as "AJ's own teammate admits he was out." A more accurate summary (of the part I heard anyway) would be that Blum said that those in the Sox dugout saw Eddings make the punch-out movement and that umps "customarily" say something if there is a trap, no catch, etc.

But why is Blum calling in to be interviewed on this at all, and in a joking, we'll-take-a-bad call vein? I'm not going to bother detailing the one-sidedness of Smith (ridiculing Rooney for "changing" his call; never mentioning that Paul should have tagged AJ or thrown to first) -- but I can't figure Blum.

Steelrod
10-13-2005, 05:01 AM
On ESPN's overnight show Jason Smith ran an interview with Blum which he teased as "AJ's own teammate admits he was out." A more accurate summary (of the part I heard anyway) would be that Blum said that those in the Sox dugout saw Eddings make the punch-out movement and that umps "customarily" say something if there is a trap, no catch, etc.

But why is Blum calling in to be interviewed on this at all, and in a joking, we'll-take-a-bad call vein? I'm not going to bother detailing the one-sidedness of Smith (ridiculing Rooney for "changing" his call; never mentioning that Paul should have tagged AJ or thrown to first) -- but I can't figure Blum.

Forget the ex-cub factor. The ex-SOX factor rules. We have so far a 27 man roster, with Paul and Graffinino. Make no mistake, THIS IS OUR YEAR!

Juice16
10-13-2005, 05:46 AM
The sad thing is that the national media will make the White Sox wear this call like a scarlet A for the rest of the playoffs. Carl Ravich even mentioning don denkinger in the same breath as the ump last night is proof that this will never be put to bed and scar the White Sox.

StepsInSC
10-13-2005, 06:21 AM
The replay clearly showed a change in the direction of the ball BEFORE it landed in the catcher's mitt. This change in direction was noted by the umpires in the post-game press conference.

To sum it up, the umpires got it right...and the Sox won the game. Josh Paul should have tagged Pierzynski...he blew it.

Go Go Sox!

I'm arguing a moot point (and just playing Devil's Advocate), but a change in direction doesn't have to occur just because the ball hit the ground. When you catch a baseball in the extended webbing of a mitt, the ball almost always moves to the plam area of the glove.

harwar
10-13-2005, 07:17 AM
I don't think the umpires ever said that the ball was dropped or hit the ground.They said that the ball clearly changed direction,and when the replay is run backwards it does change direction.I only saw it run backwards once on the air.
Anyway,like stated before,this"decisive play of the game" only put a guy on first base with two outs.You would think that it was the game ending play.
Osuna still had to steal second,Crede still had to tatoo that ball left up over the strike zone on an 0-2 count.
Also,No one is giving A.J. credit for what he did.If this had been jason varitek at the plate he would be an American hero by now.

jabrch
10-13-2005, 07:20 AM
Either way - that's a tremendous break. Who knows if we'd have won it or not - but we never had to go to extra innings.

I just hope we don't see a "makeup call" down the road.

Revolution29
10-13-2005, 08:28 AM
I think in regards to the ump's strike out call, it should be noted that, earlier in the game, Farmer and Rooney were mentinoning how he was calling strikeouts like Enriquo Plazzo (SP???) (From the The Naked Gun). On AJ's strikeout he did not make such a dramatic call. So one can see why AJ would question it and run.

Granted a win is a win and I'll take it however it comes. Go Sox!

bruno1445
10-13-2005, 08:41 AM
Josh Paul was not even sure he caught the ball cleanly. On the replay, watch him as he gets out of his crouch--he clearly watches AJ to see if AJ would run. Only after he sees AJ start to return to the dugout does he toss the ball to the mound. Now he says he's "shocked."

tdh11
10-13-2005, 08:50 AM
I'm arguing a moot point (and just playing Devil's Advocate), but a change in direction doesn't have to occur just because the ball hit the ground. When you catch a baseball in the extended webbing of a mitt, the ball almost always moves to the plam area of the glove.

Yes It clearly does, BUT with as sharp an angle as it took it couldn't have been hitting something as soft as a leather glove. The angle it took was almost 90 degrees, only something hard enough could make it angle that way. Great call and the right call

Fungo
10-13-2005, 09:04 AM
Folks, think about this...
on a check swing where the catcher asks for an appeal from either the 1B or 3B umpire, a no swing is gestured as a "safe" sign. On the other hand, a swing is gestured by the umpire holding out his had and closing the fist, thus a strike call. This is what I saw Eddings do and if anyone caught Harold Reynolds on BBTN he broke it down that Eddings was doing this same "strike 3" gesture all night long. Good call by the umpire and heads up play by AJ.

Paulwny
10-13-2005, 09:10 AM
So basically Josh Paul ****ed up and ESPN is making excuses for him?

Say it ain't so!
:cool:

:versatile
"I've sucked my entire career. What's the surprise here?"


Mr. Versitile finally comes up big !!!!!!!!!!!!

Another complaint the Angels brought up about Eddings, for the benefit of the hitter, because he usually doesn't know, the plate umpire will shout "No Catch, No Catch" on a 3rd stike which wasn't a clean catch.. There was no such call by Eddings.

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 09:26 AM
go_go_whitesox wroteThe replay clearly showed a change in the direction of the ball BEFORE it landed in the catcher's mitt. This change in direction was noted by the umpires in the post-game press conference.

To sum it up, the umpires got it right...and the Sox won the game. Josh Paul should have tagged Pierzynski...he blew it.

Go Go Sox!


welcome to WSI go_go_whitesox!

I wasn't able to watch the end of the game live. When I got home I had already heard about a controversial 3rd strike play with AJ, so I turned on the Tivo and went right to it. Watching the slow mo replay Fox played right after the play, I ran the Fox slo mo in Tivo slo mo to slow it down further and watched it 3 or 4 times. The ball clearly bounces up and the critical frames don't definitely show whether the ball bounces up from the ground or has leather underneath it. Mrs Ode and I both said, "Wow, that's a really close play!"

Then we let the Tivo run the whole hullaballou afterwards and I was totally surprised by McCarver who kept saying it was clearly a clean catch and a bad call. The Fox coverage clearly biased everyone else's coverage as well, whereas, the umps and the ump supervisor, who watched the replays many times themselves afterwards, stated clearly in the postgame that it was a good call and the replay had no evidence to overturn it.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is, AJ made a very smart play, showing twofold how we've never missed Josh Paul, as AJ demonstrated both superior knowledge of the catching situation and better baserunning. Even Phil Rogers got it right by pointing out the real gaffe was Scioscia's for having Josh Paul behind the plate at all in a tie game. I have to strongly agree here.

In the end "Clutch Crede" was the hero and Escobar did leave a hanging' breaking ball in a critical situation enabling Joe to ice the victory. When's the last time Escobar had a blown save? Great job Sox!

The always blunt Ozzie got it right too: "I don't need the controversy thing," his last words on the subject in the post game.

Game over, Sox Win, period. Let the Angels fans stew on this like the Flubs fans (still) stew on Bartman. At least Red Sox fans (intelligently) cheered Graffanino again.

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 09:31 AM
Another complaint the Angels brought up about Eddings, for the benefit of the hitter, because he usually doesn't know, the plate umpire will shout "No Catch, No Catch" on a 3rd stike which wasn't a clean catch.. There was no such call by Eddings.

Another way to "try to manufacture" a bad call out of all of this. This is not a standardized, unequivocal situation call that always happens, and really is prompted when the batter is the last to realize the situation. In this case, AJ was the first to realize the situation and act.

End of discussion: Sox win

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 09:42 AM
Mike Scioscia is an ex-catcher. He knows Paul went to his backhand on that third strike, and he knows damned well what the rules are regarding what constitutes "strike three" vs. "out."

Thus there is NO WAY IN HELL Scioscia is dumb enough to HONESTLY put the blame on the umpires -- though clearly he is trying to. Instead Scioscia is simply trying to protect his ballplayer, Josh Paul, the dope everyone knows created this mess and blew the game. That is everyone, but especially Mike Scioscia.

I must further add that Scioscia should have paid a visit to his pitcher to settle him down after Ozuna stole second base uncontested. The game was at the plate and the umpire was calling that low strike all night long. How the hell Escobar serves up a meatball on 0-2 is strictly a mental gaffe. He got cocky and careless. The blame for Josh Paul's screamer to win the game falls on Scioscia.

Scioscia also ****ed up taking out his starting catcher when Josh Paul was his only remaining choice to catch the ninth. Molina doesn't make that mistake, and Scioscia knows it! The blame for that gaffe falls on Scioscia, too.

If the Angels are looking for scapegoats, look no further than the catcher and the guy who put him into the game.

Flight #24
10-13-2005, 09:47 AM
It's really quite simple:
1 - The ump was using that signal all game for his 3d strike call
2 - The ump was making a 2d "out" call all game for dropped 3d strike-tag outs
3 - The ump was consistently not yelling "no catch, no catch" on dropped 3d strike

If people want to say that ump should alter his standard mechanics, fine. But it's absolutely clear that he was consistent all game, that he called it as he saw it, and that he's quite obviously watching what Paul's doing very closely - indicating that he was obviously watching for a dropped 3d strike/tag play.

But regardless, Josh Paul could not have seen any of that. He assumed what happened on a close play, and made the cardinal sin of putting the play in the umps hands. From childhood on, in all sports, you're told - don't put it in the refs hands, make sure you make the play. Paul did not do that and it cost his team.

WhiteSox16K
10-13-2005, 09:53 AM
I was at the game and have not seen one good replay on ESPN or anywhere else, so I really have no opinion on if the ball got dirt or not. My only thoughts come from the fact that I used to be a catcher and my experiences with that situation. First of all, Darrin Erstad was covering first. Any first baseman, who sees the catchers glove in/near the dirt, will cover first base JUST IN CASE. Paul on the other hand, was more excited about the K then about what he was supposed to do. IMO, as a catcher, whenever your glove has to go down - into the dirt - to field a pitch, it should be 100% customary to tag the batter. This, no matter if you think you caught it or not because sometimes you actually have no idea wheter you did it cleanly or not. Also, a good catcher will tag a batter (just to make sure) when his glove is in to the dirt because chances are that the guy behind you has no idea - by sight - whether the ball hit the ground or not, but if he hears two clicks (and it could be the glove on ground and the ball in glove) he will wait for a tag. Paul needs to put a tag on Pierzynski regardless of what he 'thought' he did or did not do.

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 09:53 AM
PHG wrote
Scioscia also ****ed up taking out his starting catcher when Josh Paul was his only remaining choice to catch the ninth. Molina doesn't make that mistake, and Scioscia knows it! The blame for that gaffe falls on Scioscia, too.

Even "clueless" Phil Rogers got this right. Great job by the Sox to finally break down Escobar for a blown save, now if we could only learn to steal on their lefties ...

ma-gaga
10-13-2005, 09:58 AM
Isn't AJ freaking awesome? :cool:

dammit.

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 09:58 AM
Erstad, the only Angel who got it right, was covering 1st base. Josh Paul, should absolutely know that even if he did catch the ball cleanly, he's gotta be ready to make the tag on any 3rd strike anywhere close to the dirt. In this case he had to at least glove it on the ground (if he did catch it) and be prepared to make the tag or the throw. The gaff is all his.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 10:15 AM
Erstad, the only Angel who got it right, was covering 1st base. Josh Paul, should absolutely know that even if he did catch the ball cleanly, he's gotta be ready to make the tag on any 3rd strike anywhere close to the dirt. In this case he had to at least glove it on the ground (if he did catch it) and be prepared to make the tag or the throw. The gaff is all his.That's the bottom line here. The umpire is standing behind him and can't possibly see whether he caught the ball or not, so the potential for a "mistake" is always there. You have to be ready for it. Don't toss the ball on the ground until you know for sure.

Flight #24
10-13-2005, 10:30 AM
That's the bottom line here. The umpire is standing behind him and can't possibly see whether he caught the ball or not, so the potential for a "mistake" is always there. You have to be ready for it. Don't toss the ball on the ground until you know for sure.

Not to mention that Paul made his assumption with no call from the ump whatsoever. There's no disagreement that there was no verbal call, and he couldn't have seen any physical motion. So there was a close play, and absent a call, he made an assumption and got burned.

1951Campbell
10-13-2005, 10:35 AM
I just hope we don't see a "makeup call" down the road.

That's what I'm worried about. The umps have three choices here:

1. Circle the wagons in the face of criticism from the Angels, and start squeezing them.

2. Give 'em a make-up call or two.

3. Play it straight.

Which will it be?

Settembrini
10-13-2005, 10:39 AM
It's really quite simple:
1 - The ump was using that signal all game for his 3d strike call
2 - The ump was making a 2d "out" call all game for dropped 3d strike-tag outs
3 - The ump was consistently not yelling "no catch, no catch" on dropped 3d strike



It's pretty amazing how much depends on an umpire's verbal call. I don't think people realize that. Also, anyone notice that all of the umpires simply watched A.J. run to first? No one was surprised. That's why I think Eddings thought the ball hit the ground from the beginning, and it wasn't simply A.J. selling it to him.

TDog
10-13-2005, 10:41 AM
The replay clearly showed a change in the direction of the ball BEFORE it landed in the catcher's mitt. This change in direction was noted by the umpires in the post-game press conference....

I was at work and didn't see the play, didn't know it had taken place until later and still haven't seen a replay. But this morning on the ABC radio sports segment, the announcer said the replay "clearly showed" Paul caught the ball. If people have differing opinions about what was "clearly" shown, maybe replay wasn't so clear.

I am elated that the Sox won. I don't care how they won. Never have. It isn't like they cheated. Here's the story of the game. The Sox didn't give up, showing an incredible spirit, the likes of which I have never seen in a Chicago baseball team.

A bottom of the ninth rally to win the game after it appeared there were three out. A three-out rally.

Amazing.

maurice
10-13-2005, 10:53 AM
I was shocked that McCarver didn't know the rule and kept saying that the play was over when the ump called strike 3. The erroneous implication was that a dropped 3rd strike isn't really strike 3. That's nonsense. According the rules, the pitch was strike 3 (not a ball or a foul), Pierzynski K'ed swinging, and Paul committed an error by dropping the ball and failing to finish the play. That's why it's called a "dropped 3rd strike." Thus, it was correct to call the pitch strike 3, and the strike call didn't mean that the play was over.

Given McCarver's track record, I shouldn't be surprised by his idiocy, but you'd think that a former MLB catcher would know the rule.

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 10:55 AM
I was amazed that the anouncers tonight tried to make this game's end a controversy. Tim McCarver, as a catcher, should realize that Josh Paul made a huge error by rolling the ball back to the mound. Whether it was arrogance or ignorance, it was a mistake.

The catcher is awarded a putout for every strikeout. It is the catcher's responsibility to finish the play. How many times have we seen a catcher tag a batter in the butt after the batter swung at strike three and tipped the ball into the catcher's mitt when there was little question as to whether the ball hit the ground first? Pierszynski was called out, took a step back toward the Sox dugout, then as a catcher, realized that Josh Paul neglected to finish the play. Pierszynski ran to first. That is smart baseball. McCarver's argument that Josh Paul MUST have caught the ball because he rolled it back to the mound is disingenuous.

How many times have we seen a batter take off to first thinking he has just drawn a walk get called back?

There's just one thing you need to understand about that situation. Tim McCarver is making the argument. The first intelligent comment that man makes will be his first.

dropkick371
10-13-2005, 10:56 AM
I was just about to say...

You're surprised McCarver didn't know the rule?

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 11:09 AM
Did anyone else hear McCarver call the first Sox run "a cheap run"?

Tim, last time I checked, a run scored on a home run counts just as much as one scored on a throwing error + sac bunt + fielder's choice. Errors are part of baseball. The Sox executed to get that runner in. How the **** is that "cheap"?

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 11:11 AM
Is it time for Tim McCarver to finally retire or what ... the Alzheimer's is starting to show

DaleJRFan
10-13-2005, 11:13 AM
McCarver is a class-A ASSCLOWN. I still giggle watching the video of Deon Sanders dumping a bucket of water on him in the locker room... Great stuff.

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 11:16 AM
Did anyone else hear McCarver call the first Sox run "a cheap run"?

Tim, last time I checked, a run scored on a home run counts just as much as one scored on a throwing error + sac bunt + fielder's choice. Errors are part of baseball. The Sox executed to get that runner in. How the **** is that "cheap"?

According to Fox and ESPN, runs don't count unless they come via the home run.

batmanZoSo
10-13-2005, 11:16 AM
I was amazed that the anouncers tonight tried to make this game's end a controversy. Tim McCarver, as a catcher, should realize that Josh Paul made a huge error by rolling the ball back to the mound. Whether it was arrogance or ignorance, it was a mistake.

The catcher is awarded a putout for every strikeout. It is the catcher's responsibility to finish the play. How many times have we seen a catcher tag a batter in the butt after the batter swung at strike three and tipped the ball into the catcher's mitt when there was little question as to whether the ball hit the ground first? Pierszynski was called out, took a step back toward the Sox dugout, then as a catcher, realized that Josh Paul neglected to finish the play. Pierszynski ran to first. That is smart baseball. McCarver's argument that Josh Paul MUST have caught the ball because he rolled it back to the mound is disingenuous.

How many times have we seen a batter take off to first thinking he has just drawn a walk get called back?

Pierzynski is such a gamer and so clutch it pretty much overshadows his pitiful defense in my opinion. Talk about luck to have him of all people up there at that moment. Could be what saves the season for us.

And it was hilarious how giddy he seemed talking to reporters afterward. He had this expression on his face like he just made out with a big sack of money and knew he was home free and couldn't believe he got away with it. :D:

wassagstdu
10-13-2005, 11:45 AM
Josh Paul gave the Sox a fourth out in the inning, sure, but if Ozuna doesn't steal second and Crede doesn't get the first solid hit off a pitcher that made six in a row look bad, it would mean nothing.


.

GoGoGoGo
10-13-2005, 11:55 AM
If we use the NFL Concept of replay to determine the fairness of the call, we'll see that the only stupid thing done was Josh Paul flipping the ball like he somehow did something great.

I've seen that replay about 200 times now, and there's no way you could "overturn the call." You also see that while Josh Paul is throwing the ball towards the mound, the ump is holding his arm out to the side. According to every umpire book or site I've seen, this means drop-third, no catch.

This would not be overturned in a replay environment, so why are people so appalled.

Also, McCarver is a dope as a drop-third is clearly a K. That's why the record for most strikeouts in an inning is 4.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 12:00 PM
....

Also, McCarver is a dope as a drop-third is clearly a K. That's why the record for most strikeouts in an inning is 4.

THANK YOU!!!

And I must say, this controversy is revealing for the entire world what a COMPLETE DOPE Tim McCarver truly is. The guy is even an ex-catcher!
:o:

I hope the travel day gives McCarver and the other dopes at Fox and ESPN time to reflect on the nonsense they spouted last night and come clean with newly-moderated opinions about the controversy before Friday's Game 3.

Personally I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
:cool:

MarySwiss
10-13-2005, 12:02 PM
That's what I'm worried about. The umps have three choices here:

1. Circle the wagons in the face of criticism from the Angels, and start squeezing them.

2. Give 'em a make-up call or two.

3. Play it straight.

Which will it be?

We'll find out soon enough. Personally, I think they'll try to play it straight, but I'm wondering what effect all the criticism from the media will have on them.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 12:15 PM
We'll find out soon enough. Personally, I think they'll try to play it straight, but I'm wondering what effect all the criticism from the media will have on them.

I agree. If there was to be an "even up" call, it would have been made last night. No way they would "even up" across two separate games when there is no doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that Josh Paul was guilty of a boneheaded play -- regardless whether he claims he caught the ball cleanly or not.

GregoryEtc
10-13-2005, 12:28 PM
Does anyone know the rule about stepping on home? Before taking off for first, AJ first started toward the dugout, stepping on home in the process. I know there are some convoluted rules regarding stepping on home in the process of a bunt, etc but I've never tried to understand them nor have I ever seen the call enforced. But AJ DID step on home. Was he out for this?

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 12:30 PM
Does anyone know the rule about stepping on home? Before taking off for first, AJ first started toward the dugout, stepping on home in the process. I know there are some convoluted rules regarding stepping on home in the process of a bunt, etc but I've never tried to understand them nor have I ever seen the call enforced. But AJ DID step on home. Was he out for this?No.

voodoochile
10-13-2005, 12:32 PM
No.

I was going to say. Home plate is in fair territory. Why would you be out for stepping on it on your way to first in any situation?

Is that actually a rule or just a rumor? I have never heard that before.

getonbckthr
10-13-2005, 12:33 PM
official ruling of drop 3rd according to rule book at mlb.com:


6.09
The batter becomes a runner when_ (a) He hits a fair ball; (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out; When a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. If, however, he actually reaches the dugout or dugout steps, he may not then attempt to go to first base and shall be out. (c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory; (d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only; (e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases; (f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases; (g) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases; (h) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 12:42 PM
official ruling of drop 3rd according to rule book at mlb.com:


6.09
The batter becomes a runner when_ (a) He hits a fair ball; (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out; When a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. If, however, he actually reaches the dugout or dugout steps, he may not then attempt to go to first base and shall be out. ....

Well, AJ took exactly one step back towards the dugout. Clearly that's not enough to rule him out. Furthermore there is NOTHING about stepping on homeplate making him automatically out. End of discussion.

As for any confusion regarding stepping on homeplate and automatic outs, this applies to bunt attempts like the one Carlos Guillen laid down on the Sox in Game 3 of the 2000 ALDS. His foot was on homeplate which by definition means he was outside the batter's box and thus automatically out. The umpire missed the call and that was the winning (and clinching) play for Seattle.

Yeah, but let's listen to the media bitch and bitch and bitch about everything besides Josh Paul proving himself (yet again) to be a busher.

:cool:

voodoochile
10-13-2005, 12:45 PM
Well, AJ took exactly one step back towards the dugout. Clearly that's not enough to rule him out. Furthermore there is NOTHING about stepping on homeplate making him automatically out. End of discussion.

As for any confusion regarding stepping on homeplate and automatic outs, this applies to bunt attempts like the one Carlos Guillen laid down on the Sox in Game 3 of the 2000 ALDS. His foot was on homeplate which by definition means he was outside the batter's box and thus automatically out. The umpire missed the call and that was the winning (and clinching) play for Seattle.

Yeah, but let's listen to the media bitch and bitch and bitch about everything besides Josh Paul proving himself (yet again) to be a busher.

:cool:

Okay, that much I knew. You cannot make contact with the ball while outside the batters box or you are out. That makes sense. It isn't about stepping on home plate while running it's about stepping on home plate while batting...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 12:49 PM
Okay, that much I knew. You cannot make contact with the ball while outside the batters box or you are out. That makes sense. It isn't about stepping on home plate while running it's about stepping on home plate while batting...

As Jules in Pulp Fiction might say, "EXACT-O-MUNDO!"
:wink:

That's the logic behind the rules of baseball. The rules that apply to you as a batter are different than those that apply to you as a baserunner. AJ Pierzynski was a baserunner from the moment the umpire ruled the pitched ball trapped on strike three.

Too bad for Josh Paul that the rules of baseball don't give him a veto over what the umpire rules. He can pout all he wants about this. He only brings shame on himself and his team for doing so.

:cool:

Settembrini
10-13-2005, 12:58 PM
Does anyone know the rule about stepping on home? Before taking off for first, AJ first started toward the dugout, stepping on home in the process. I know there are some convoluted rules regarding stepping on home in the process of a bunt, etc but I've never tried to understand them nor have I ever seen the call enforced. But AJ DID step on home. Was he out for this?

I think the catcher can step on home to record an out if there's a dropped third strike with the bases loaded. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

GoGoGoGo
10-13-2005, 02:26 PM
I think the catcher can step on home to record an out if there's a dropped third strike with the bases loaded. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

There is no drop-third with the bases loaded. Only when first base is open. It would be a pretty silly rule to force runners along on a dropped strike.

Flight #24
10-13-2005, 02:33 PM
FWIW, of all people, Jeff Brantley just called into Dan Patrick's show (80% spent railing on Eddings for his call), and explicitly says "Dan - on super-slo-mo replay, the ball moved up". Also "Eddings walks towards the pitchers mound as the ball rolls out, which should tell me the play is going on". "the ump has to say 'you're out', there's no out call made". "His strike callis the same as his out call, except when he says you're out, you're out"

Patrick's still trying to pin it on him as a bad play by the ump. But Brantley's having none of it. For all that he's been a piece of used toilet paper throughout the season, he's the one guy I've heard who's very clearly and plainly explained this and made sure his view is heard. Kudos to him for hearing the discussion and calling in to correct Patrick's errors.

Man Soo Lee
10-13-2005, 02:45 PM
There is no drop-third with the bases loaded. Only when first base is open. It would be a pretty silly rule to force runners along on a dropped strike.

The dropped third strike would apply with two outs. With the bases loaded, the catcher can just step on the plate for the force.

voodoochile
10-13-2005, 03:04 PM
There is no drop-third with the bases loaded. Only when first base is open. It would be a pretty silly rule to force runners along on a dropped strike.

There is with two outs.

Fuller_Schettman
10-13-2005, 03:15 PM
FWIW, of all people, Jeff Brantley just called into Dan Patrick's show (80% spent railing on Eddings for his call), and explicitly says "Dan - on super-slo-mo replay, the ball moved up". Also "Eddings walks towards the pitchers mound as the ball rolls out, which should tell me the play is going on". "the ump has to say 'you're out', there's no out call made". "His strike callis the same as his out call, except when he says you're out, you're out"

Patrick's still trying to pin it on him as a bad play by the ump. But Brantley's having none of it. For all that he's been a piece of used toilet paper throughout the season, he's the one guy I've heard who's very clearly and plainly explained this and made sure his view is heard. Kudos to him for hearing the discussion and calling in to correct Patrick's errors.

I'm glad you posted this. I'm no Brantley fan, but if we are going to rail on him when he spews, then we should also give him credit for getting it right.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 03:17 PM
FWIW, of all people, Jeff Brantley just called into Dan Patrick's show (80% spent railing on Eddings for his call), and explicitly says "Dan - on super-slo-mo replay, the ball moved up". Also "Eddings walks towards the pitchers mound as the ball rolls out, which should tell me the play is going on". "the ump has to say 'you're out', there's no out call made". "His strike callis the same as his out call, except when he says you're out, you're out"

Patrick's still trying to pin it on him as a bad play by the ump. But Brantley's having none of it. For all that he's been a piece of used toilet paper throughout the season, he's the one guy I've heard who's very clearly and plainly explained this and made sure his view is heard. Kudos to him for hearing the discussion and calling in to correct Patrick's errors.He gets Mullet Props. :redneck

maurice
10-13-2005, 03:24 PM
Keep in mind that Brantley has been rooting against the Sox all season, even saying that he would "love" to see the Sox miss the playoffs. If there were any reasonable argument that ump was wrong, Brantley would have jumped all over it.

GoGoGoGo
10-13-2005, 03:53 PM
There is with two outs.

Wow, I honestly never knew that. Seems pretty silly.

voodoochile
10-13-2005, 08:51 PM
Wow, I honestly never knew that. Seems pretty silly.

Not really. What if the ball goes all the way to the wall?

You have to draw the line somewhere. That line is when the ball hit's the ground before finally settling in the catcher's mitt. If it's a quick bobble and the catcher recovers and tags home, inning over, but if it gets away...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 09:23 PM
Not really. What if the ball goes all the way to the wall?

You have to draw the line somewhere. That line is when the ball hit's the ground before finally settling in the catcher's mitt. If it's a quick bobble and the catcher recovers and tags home, inning over, but if it gets away...

There is a very practical reason why an out isn't recorded until the third strike is caught or the batter tagged: a smart manager wouldn't bother to have his catcher play behind homeplate if they automatically got the out with strike three. Unless required to catch the ball or apply the tag, catching the ball is irrelevant after strike three crosses the plate.

The Billy Martins of this world get the second strike and then tell their pitcher to throw whatever strikeout pitch they have while the catcher ran out to take a position somewhere on the field, probably defending the hitter's pull-side foul line. The umpire would be left behind homeplate to fend for himself.

CLR01
10-13-2005, 09:33 PM
The umpire would be left behind homeplate to fend for himself.


Thats not a bad idea.

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 09:34 PM
Thats not a bad idea.

Especially if it's Eric Cooper. I've been waiting for someone to knock the **** out of him for a long time.

saltwater farmer
10-13-2005, 09:34 PM
Folks, think about this...
on a check swing where the catcher asks for an appeal from either the 1B or 3B umpire, a no swing is gestured as a "safe" sign. On the other hand, a swing is gestured by the umpire holding out his had and closing the fist, thus a strike call. This is what I saw Eddings do and if anyone caught Harold Reynolds on BBTN he broke it down that Eddings was doing this same "strike 3" gesture all night long. Good call by the umpire and heads up play by AJ.

He pumps his fist on EVERY strike, not just 3rd strikes. I watched the game again today and saw it with my own two eyes. For this umpire, the fist pump indicates a strike, ANY STRIKE, NOT an out. He did it on every strike for 9 innings.

Jurr
10-13-2005, 09:36 PM
He pumps his fist on EVERY strike, not just 3rd strikes. I watched the game again today and saw it with my own two eyes. For this umpire, the fist pump indicates a strike, ANY STRIKE, NOT an out. He did it on every strike for 9 innings.
Exactly. Therefore, the only case that can be made out of all of this is that there needs to be a uniform call for strikes and strikeouts. Period.

So....game three coming up..who's pumped?

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 09:38 PM
Exactly. Therefore, the only case that can be made out of all of this is that there needs to be a uniform call for strikes and strikeouts. Period.

So....game three coming up..who's pumped?

I am. I'm sick of this crap from yesterday. It happend. It's done. The media can whine all they want. I don't remember them sheding any tears for Frank Thomas when his season ended, but they're going to cry over Josh Paul? *****!

Jurr has the right idea. Game 3 is tomorrow. That's where things are headed.

TornLabrum
10-13-2005, 09:59 PM
I actually am relishing all the to-do about this. I look at it this way. If we win the ALCS, the mediots will be saying that our title is tainted, and we will no doubt go into the World Series as underdogs. And that's when we play best.