PDA

View Full Version : You Make the Call.....


knocko94
10-13-2005, 01:03 AM
Was it a dropped third strike or not?

I think Paul trapped the ball, no catch. It was clear to me that the ball was bouncing up into his mitt, and I don't think he had the leather underneath the ball initially.

kevingrt
10-13-2005, 01:05 AM
Was it a dropped third strike or not?

I think Paul trapped the ball, no catch. It was clear to me that the ball was bouncing up into his mitt, and I don't think he had the leather underneath the ball initially.

I wouldn't say he is a scrub. He is a good guy, but I think the ball had to have hit the dirt.

LuvSox
10-13-2005, 01:06 AM
Prediction:

A dead horse will be beaten here soon.........

knocko94
10-13-2005, 01:07 AM
I wouldn't say he is a scrub. He is a good guy, but I think the ball had to have hit the dirt.

Point taken. he did come in to my high school for some reason to talk to a class. perhaps I'll change it to ...not good catcher.... or something

edit: don't think I can change it, oh well, he's was a scrub on that play

peeonwrigley
10-13-2005, 01:09 AM
Replay shows it clearly hopped up into Paul's glove. No catch.

Banix12
10-13-2005, 01:09 AM
Certainly a trap but of course the issue is going to be the call of the umpire.

Now if you excuse me I have to go see a man about a dead horse...

bestkosher
10-13-2005, 01:09 AM
if you watch the shadow of the ball the ball hits the ground behind AJ's foot then bounds up toward josh pauls glove. Also even if that was not the case, is trapping the ball in the dirt a catch, it is is not in football is it here?

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 01:10 AM
Your question and the answers are inconsistent with each other.

Care to re-word this?

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:12 AM
Your question and the answers are inconsistent with each other.

Care to re-word this?I've got a better idea. The thread blows, let's ignore it. :redneck

Gavin
10-13-2005, 01:13 AM
All I know is...If we switched teams on this call, no one here would be saying he didn't catch the ball.

/thread

LuvSox
10-13-2005, 01:13 AM
I've got a better idea. The thread blows, let's ignore it. :redneck

:kneeslap:

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:14 AM
All I know is...If we switched teams on this call, no one here would be saying he didn't catch the ball. Bull****. Rowand was out, Crede was out, AJ was safe. No problemo. Put your Rally Monkey away and give it a rest.

Gavin
10-13-2005, 01:16 AM
Bull****. Rowand was out, Crede was out, AJ was safe. No problemo. Put your Rally Monkey away and give it a rest.

No one here is talking about Rowand/Crede. I'm not sure if the ball was caught or not, but I do know what we'd all be saying if it was the other way around.

ElevenUp
10-13-2005, 01:17 AM
After watching the replay about 20 times, I still can't tell if he caught it. It doesn't matter. The umpire did not call AJ out. If it was even close, Josh should have tagged AJ. The Angels are making a big deal about the Ump signaling the out with his fist. If you look at the replay, Josh has already rolled the ball toward the mound when the fist goes up, and never looks at the ump for the call. He simply assumes the catch which was never called. The fist going up does not really play any part in what the Josh Paul does. That's my arguement and I'm sticking with it.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:18 AM
No one here is talking about Rowand/Crede. I'm not sure if the ball was caught or not, but I do know what we'd all be saying if it was the other way around.Speak for yourself. Don't be so presumptuous. Some of us can call it how it is.

knocko94
10-13-2005, 01:19 AM
I've got a better idea. The thread blows, let's ignore it. :redneck

Yo West, I know this was discussed to death in the post game thread, just wanted to get a very unscientific poll of the opinions of us sox fans.

Anyway, am I able to edit the poll question to something like: Did he catch it?


Edit: Thanks for changing it for me.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:23 AM
Yo West, I know this was discussed to death in the post game thread, just wanted to get a very unscientific poll of the opinions of us sox fans.

Anyway, am I able to edit the poll question to something like: Did he catch it?I changed it for you. And I even left the "he caught it" votes from those suffering from a combination of blindness and hand wringing guilt. :redneck

johnny_mostil
10-13-2005, 01:25 AM
All I know is...If we switched teams on this call, no one here would be saying he didn't catch the ball.


Wouldn't happen. AJ's not stupid enough to assume the umpire would call an out without a tag on a splitter in the dirt. The Angels pinch-ran for their second-string catcher, used their first-string catcher as their DH, and got burned when their third-string catcher didn't take a simple precaution, which is why he was charged with an error. There is no way Doug Eddings could see the ball hit the ground or not -- or any other human being. He assumed it didn't. Josh should have, too. If your out pitch is a trick pitch like that, you have to make sure you tag the runner -- especially when he's just standing there.

Gavin
10-13-2005, 01:28 AM
I just can't beleive with HDTV and the ton of cameras they have for this type of coverage that they couldn't come up with a clear shot, or at least one better than we saw. On the same token, they say it's calls like these that merit Instant Replay in baseball. I hope that day never comes.

johnny_mostil
10-13-2005, 01:28 AM
I changed it for you. And I even left the "he caught it" votes from those suffering from a combination of blindness and hand wringing guilt. :redneck

Guilt? There is no guilt in baseball. The Red Sox won an ALDS two years ago because the umpires melted down on a basepath interference call and rewarded the Red Sox for cheating. The controversy lasted a day and I don't remember the Red Sox Nation feeling guilty, I remember them burning Aaron Boone effigies a bit over a week later. Here the White Sox didn't cheat, they caught a break. Doug Eddings didn't hang a breaking pitch to Crede to lose the game.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:30 AM
I just can't beleive with HDTV and the ton of cameras they have for this type of coverage that they couldn't come up with a clear shot, or at least one better than we saw. On the same token, they say it's calls like these that merit Instant Replay in baseball. I hope that day never comes.Instant replay wouldn't have done ****. There was nothing there to overturn the on field call.

johnny_mostil
10-13-2005, 01:31 AM
I just can't beleive with HDTV and the ton of cameras they have for this type of coverage that they couldn't come up with a clear shot, or at least one better than we saw. On the same token, they say it's calls like these that merit Instant Replay in baseball. I hope that day never comes.

Only if they also use machine vision to call balls and strikes, mistakes on which are far more serious and game-impacting. It'll never happen because the Yankees and Red Sox couldn't hit any more with all the third strikes they take and get away with.

WhiteSox05Champs
10-13-2005, 01:31 AM
I personally feel he caught it, but it doesn't matter. In no sport ever do you stop play until you KNOW something is called. All he had to do was tag the runner, which being a close play to begin with, he should have.

I am sure Paul would admit he should have tagged the runner as a precaution. And even if the shoe was on the other foot, I would be pretty pissed at AJ for making the same assumption. It isn't hard to tag the runner and should ALWAYS be done on any sort of close call. Especially if you don't hear the ump make an out call.

johnny_mostil
10-13-2005, 01:31 AM
Instant replay wouldn't have done ****. There was nothing there to overturn the on field call.

Agreed. If IR couldn't fix the TD in the Bears-Lions game last December, why would it be able to fix this?

Gavin
10-13-2005, 01:34 AM
Instant replay wouldn't have done ****. There was nothing there to overturn the on field call.

You don't have to be so hostile. If you read my post, I made it clear I'm not a fan of the idea at all.

Frankfan4life
10-13-2005, 01:34 AM
The ump's call did not cost the Angels the game, what happened after the call did. The Angels still had a chance to throw Ozuna out or get Crede out. They did neither.

SoxSideIrish
10-13-2005, 01:35 AM
I agree, no catch. The closeup of the replay, I thought, shows the ball bouncing up into the mitt. Amazing heads-up play by my boy AJ. I think he is the only person on the team that would have done it. Anyone else and we would have seen the 10th. Also, this play didnt lose the game for the LAA'sofA; the hanging splitter did. Way to go Joe.

Was anyone else bothered by how naive Tim McCarver and Buck are? They kept repeating that "Josh Paul would never have rolled the ball to the mound if he didnt think that he caught the ball!" MY ASS! (sorry) Of course he would do that! When you're a major leaguer, it's your job to do everything in your power to "sell" a play or to act and be convincing that you're right. AJ ran to first to backup his point, and Josh Paul jogged off the field like he made the catch, reguardless of whether or not he actually did. Its the same thing as when catchers glove a ball that might be slightly out of the zone and move their mitt back to the zone real quick to try and sell a strike. Or even better, when people start their walk to first if a pitch was in reeeeal close. It doesn't matter if it hit you or not, the umpire watches your reaction. If its too close for him to tell, and you make like you got hit, 9 times out of 10, he's gonna give you the bag.

How long have these guys been around the Majors? Or professional sports in general? Acting is part of the game, always will be. Good thing these two guys dont cover professional soccer, they'd think that every person rolling on the ground was actually hurt.

[EDIT] AND ANOTHER THING... why the hell would JPaul not tag AJ? That should be second nature to a catcher at this level. If the ball is even remotely close to the dirt, you tag that batter juuuust to make extra sure. There was a reason this guy never played much for us and why he's still 3rd string.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:37 AM
You don't have to be so hostile. If you read my post, I made it clear I'm not a fan of the idea at all.Let's see, I've merged 673 friggin' postgame threads into one. And yet, I wasn't hostile. Quit being so sensitive. Sheesh.

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 01:42 AM
Bull****. Rowand was out, Crede was out, AJ was safe. No problemo. Put your Rally Monkey away and give it a rest.

I have to agree with this. It's amazing when you go back and look at the replays that the umps make the right call about 99% of the time...

FJA
10-13-2005, 01:43 AM
Looks to me like a catch, but I'm not sure that's the point. On a close call like that, it's little league knowledge that you tag the hitter just to be sure. Josh Paul didn't do that, and he didn't get the call. Dumb mistake, and you see what happened as a result.

As far as AJ goes, that's pure heads up. Being that he's a catcher, I'm pretty sure that had anyone else been up in the same situation, that's out no. 3.

Nice work AJ.:bandance:

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 01:45 AM
Let's see, I've merged 673 friggin' postgame threads into one. And yet, I wasn't hostile. Quit being so sensitive. Sheesh.


LOL, believe me West is not getting hostile ... yet :redneck

MHOUSE
10-13-2005, 01:48 AM
Josh Paul did not catch strike three. ESPN and FOX would love to think that he did and make this an even bigger controversy than needed, but the fact is that the ball bounced into his mitt. The replays show that. All this cut-and-dry blown call stuff is BS.

The only argument/issue present here is whether or not the umpire called out AJ. According to the only people within earshot (AJ, Josh Paul, and the homeplate umpire) no such call was made for either an out or a catch. Therefore, the call should stand, no argument.

However, I can see why the Angels would be upset and lets all be honest here: had the roles been reversed, we'd want that umpire's head on a plate.

shes
10-13-2005, 02:03 AM
I think he caught it as well, but by no means is it conclusive. It's laughable that so many people are arguing vehemently that it hit the dirt, talking about shadows and things like that. The fact of the matter is, the ump messed up by not immediately saying "no catch"; Paul messsed up by not tagging AJ just to be sure; and AJ made an historically heads-up play by taking a stab in the dark and running to first. Oh, and Crede should never have to pay for a drink in this city again. Extra innings have been tough on the Sox all year -- who knows what would have happened if he didn't win it right there and then.
:gulp:

Like so many have said before me, if it was the Sox who were on the other side, people would be up in arms the same way the Angels and their fans are. That's to be expected with such a controversial call being so close; strong arguments can be made on both sides.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 10:12 AM
I watched that replay more times than I can count. The ball definately changed direction, bouncing up into his glove. But it looks to me like the webbing of the glove was under the ball, making it a catch. Blown calls are part of baseball. If the umpire says it was a trap, that's it.

That said, I think the umpire screwed up by not announcing it was a "no catch". That's SOP and he didn't do it. Otherwise, the catcher has no way of knowing that he ruled it a no-catch.

Also, I can't EVER recall umpires having a post-game press conference to discuss a call. Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent. It is whatever he called it and that's it.

Sad
10-13-2005, 10:22 AM
Josh Paul is no scrub, but regardless of whether it was a catch or not...
catchers are taught at the little league level; if it's close- tag the batter, or throw to first...:rolleyes:

SOX WIN! :party:
on to Anaheim...

ChicagoHoosier
10-13-2005, 10:32 AM
I watched that replay more times than I can count. The ball definately changed direction, bouncing up into his glove. But it looks to me like the webbing of the glove was under the ball, making it a catch. Blown calls are part of baseball. If the umpire says it was a trap, that's it.

That said, I think the umpire screwed up by not announcing it was a "no catch". That's SOP and he didn't do it. Otherwise, the catcher has no way of knowing that he ruled it a no-catch.

Also, I can't EVER recall umpires having a post-game press conference to discuss a call. Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent. It is whatever he called it and that's it.

Agree it's a bad precedent, but maybe the press conference was because it was very confusing on the field what the call (or no-call) was. It was much different than a close play called safe/out or a ball call ball 4 or strike three. This was something the public and media didn't know what really happened until they explained themselves.

I thought Paul caught it. Not conclusive evidence and an arguement can be made either way, but that's my call if I'm the ump. Caught, 3rd strike.

Procol Harum
10-13-2005, 10:33 AM
If the shoe would have been on the other foot I wonder how many of our people would have thought Josh Paul out and AJ made the catch? 98%?

We caught a break, AJ should win an award for quick thinking and deeking the umps into basically reversing their call. That's baseball and the Angels had a chance to stop it thereafter but allowed the stolen base and Crede's hit--we win.

But, seriously, do 60% of the people on this site really think that wasn't a catch??? DELUSIONAL....:rolleyes:

1951Campbell
10-13-2005, 10:45 AM
I say it's a catch. That was my initial reaction, that's what I saw on replays from the centerfield camera. I haven't seen other angles and would be willing to be persuaded otherwise, but for now, I'll have to say catch.

Flight #24
10-13-2005, 10:53 AM
I watched that replay more times than I can count. The ball definately changed direction, bouncing up into his glove. But it looks to me like the webbing of the glove was under the ball, making it a catch. Blown calls are part of baseball. If the umpire says it was a trap, that's it.

That said, I think the umpire screwed up by not announcing it was a "no catch". That's SOP and he didn't do it. Otherwise, the catcher has no way of knowing that he ruled it a no-catch.

Also, I can't EVER recall umpires having a post-game press conference to discuss a call. Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent. It is whatever he called it and that's it.

Per the ump, he never made the "no catch" call all game. So regardless of whether it's bad form or not, he was consistent, which is what you really want. This almost certainly came down to it being Paul's first inning with this ump and his assuming that not having heard "no catch", it was a caught ball. I'd guess that Molina doesn't make that same mistake, especially since he wouldn't have heard "no catch" all game.

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 10:58 AM
That said, I think the umpire screwed up by not announcing it was a "no catch". That's SOP and he didn't do it. Otherwise, the catcher has no way of knowing that he ruled it a no-catch.

He also didn't say "He's out" either. That's what should have clued him in.

AJ noticed that he didn't say "out". :tongue:

Madvora
10-13-2005, 10:59 AM
So currenty 55,684 total people have voted in this poll?

donkeylips
10-13-2005, 10:59 AM
55,560 people can't be wrong?

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 11:09 AM
I'm glad one of the mods fixed this stupid poll

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 11:10 AM
Per the ump, he never made the "no catch" call all game. So regardless of whether it's bad form or not, he was consistent, which is what you really want. This almost certainly came down to it being Paul's first inning with this ump and his assuming that not having heard "no catch", it was a caught ball. I'd guess that Molina doesn't make that same mistake, especially since he wouldn't have heard "no catch" all game.Agree completely. The catcher can't see the umpire's gestures, and that's why most umpires will say "no catch". It's not a requirement, but it's just good umpiring.

It's interesting how many stars had to come into alignment on this play. Molina wouldn't have made the same mistake because he'd have known Eddings' movements. Also, any Sox player other than Pierzynski would probably not have known to run to first for the same reason. One of those crazy things that just happen. The baseball gods are smiling on the Sox.:smile:

Cambridge
10-13-2005, 11:32 AM
If the shoe would have been on the other foot I wonder how many of our people would have thought Josh Paul out and AJ made the catch? 98%?

My guess is that it's closer to 99.99999998%. That's not a dig against White Sox fans; it's human nature.

This has been a bad postseason for umpires. The interference call that went against the Yankees in game 5 made this Red Sox fan happy, but it was flat-out a bad call. You never want games decided (or even turned) by bad calls. But they happen.

mike squires
10-13-2005, 11:36 AM
I could care less if Paul caught the ball or not. It was a judgement call and could have gone either way. Saying that, Paul caught the ball. Looked like a catch to me. IT cracks me up to hear everyone say it bounced into his glove. If that makes you fel better then so be it. I feel good just knowing we won the game...no matter what.

pssondacubs
10-13-2005, 12:00 PM
But, seriously, do 60% of the people on this site really think that wasn't a catch??? DELUSIONAL....:rolleyes:
Tivo came in handy last night. I immediately started watching replays after Fox showed their close up front view. Look at the ball when they stop the motion. Look at the position of the ball from the ground. Note the height of the ball. Now move forward to the frame with the ball in his glove. The ball is clearly higher when it hits his glove before he moves his glove up. A ball can't curve upward in a span of 3 or 4 inches. Delusional?? NO, common sense.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 12:14 PM
Tivo came in handy last night. I immediately started watching replays after Fox showed their close up front view. Look at the ball when they stop the motion. Look at the position of the ball from the ground. Note the height of the ball. Now move forward to the frame with the ball in his glove. The ball is clearly higher when it hits his glove before he moves his glove up. A ball can't curve upward in a span of 3 or 4 inches. Delusional?? NO, common sense.Look closer. The webbing of the glove appears to be between the ball and the ground. That makes it a catch.

batmanZoSo
10-13-2005, 12:26 PM
Honestly, I have to say inconclusive. It's a toss-up and we got the bounce thanks to AJ's heads-up selling of the play. The ball clearly has a trajectory or a carum to it uncharacteristic of a ball caught cleanly out of mid-air. Now, whether the ricochet is the result of dirt or leather I, personally, can't distinguish. Nor do I care. I said it in another thread and I'll say it again: It's over, done with and we deserve a lucky break and many more to come for all the years we've suffered. In short, I don't care!

I'm a big 49er fan and I look at this the same way I viewed Jerry Rice's "fumble," in which he was ruled down, during the waning moments of the Divisional playoff against Green Bay in January of 1999. The way I see it--and Steve Young said roughly the same thing--Green Bay had always gotten every conceivable break against San Fran, whether it be the bounce of the ball or a referee's judgement. Luck is part of any game that is judged by imperfect humans and San Fran was due, just like we were.

miker
10-13-2005, 12:49 PM
A.J. caught the home plate umpire, and apparently the rest of the crew, with their pants around their ankles.

Procol Harum
10-13-2005, 12:56 PM
Tivo came in handy last night. I immediately started watching replays after Fox showed their close up front view. Look at the ball when they stop the motion. Look at the position of the ball from the ground. Note the height of the ball. Now move forward to the frame with the ball in his glove. The ball is clearly higher when it hits his glove before he moves his glove up. A ball can't curve upward in a span of 3 or 4 inches. Delusional?? NO, common sense.

I have TIVO and it looked pretty clear to me that he caught it....regardless, basing an ump's call--standing behind and shielded by the catcher--on a slowed-down, frame-by-frame replay makes for tough standards by which to judge a live action call.