PDA

View Full Version : Listening to sportsblab radio this morning, you'd swear...


cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 09:53 AM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Last time I checked, the score was still 1-1 when that play happened.

Last time I checked, Pablo Ozuna stole second base after that play happened.

Last time I checked, Joe Crede belted an 0-2 meatball to the left field wall to score the winning run after that play happened.

Last time I checked, it's not possible to say you "stole" a game when, at worst, it would have been tied heading into extra innings barring that call.

The meme apparently has been spread: that call won the game for the White Sox. Apparently it's been elevated to Steve Bartman status, and that Pablo's awesome steal and Joe's clutch hit don't factor into it. THAT CALL, and that call alone, gave the White Sox the lead and the game, apparently.

I'm not buying it.

tdh11
10-13-2005, 10:00 AM
they have to be contreversial so right minded people like us will call in and tell them theyre crazy.

Here's to Cal Eldred

MsSoxVixen22
10-13-2005, 10:01 AM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Last time I checked, the score was still 1-1 when that play happened.

Last time I checked, Pablo Ozuna stole second base after that play happened.

Last time I checked, Joe Crede belted an 0-2 meatball to the left field wall to score the winning run after that play happened.

Last time I checked, it's not possible to say you "stole" a game when, at worst, it would have been tied heading into extra innings barring that call.

The meme apparently has been spread: that call won the game for the White Sox. Apparently it's been elevated to Steve Bartman status, and that Pablo's awesome steal and Joe's clutch hit don't factor into it. THAT CALL, and that call alone, gave the White Sox the lead and the game, apparently.

I'm not buying it.


I agree. They're blowing this waaaayy outta proportion. They were talking about curses and that this is someone Cub related. :rolleyes: Give me a ****ing break. The ball hit the damn ground. The catcher didn't tag AJ so he ran and he sold everyone on it. AJ is ****ing awesome. Had AJ not have done what he did, it would have been ball 4 would it not? This town and the media are so hung up on curses and conspiracies it makes me sick. Curses are for the OTHER side of town. AJ pulled a great move and it paid off. Its about time something fell our way. Its not like the Halos played GREAT ball last nite. Lets go to Anaheim and show them who's boss.

hold2dibber
10-13-2005, 10:04 AM
Before the bottom of the 9th, I said to my wife, "Just let them scratch out a run, anyway they can. I don't care if it's an error, a hit-by-pitch, somehow, someway, scratch out a run." Obviously, I couldn't foresee what happened, but anyone who suggests that the Sox were "given" the game is a fool. I don't know if the ball hit the ground or not, but it was very close and there's no way the umps could say definitively whether it hit or not - it was too close to call IMHO. That puts the onus on the players. Our player (A.J.) did the right thing in such a situation, he took advantage of the ambiguity by hustling up the line. Their player (Paul) did not - he assumed. Then our guy stole second. Then our guy hit a shot off the wall to win it. I'm sorry, but that game was NOT a gift. The Sox won because they made the heads-up and clutch plays in the 9th (don't get me started on the heads-in-the-lower-intestines and lack of clutch plays prior to the 9th, however) and because Buehrle was absolutely heroic.

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 10:05 AM
I agree. They're blowing this waaaayy outta proportion. They were talking about curses and that this is someone Cub related. :rolleyes: Give me a ****ing break. The ball hit the damn ground. The catcher didn't tag AJ so he ran and he sold everyone on it. AJ is ****ing awesome. Had AJ not have done what he did, it would have been ball 4 would it not? This town and the media are so hung up on curses and conspiracies it makes me sick. Curses are for the OTHER side of town. AJ pulled a great move and it paid off. Its about time something fell our way. Its not like the Halos played GREAT ball last nite. Lets go to Anaheim and show them who's boss.

It would have been a strikeout, since AJ swung at it. I also don't think the ball hit the ground -- Paul's webbing was underneath the ball the entire time.

But all that play does is put a man on first base with 2 outs. It didn't tie the game for the White Sox, and it certainly didn't give them the lead.

Risk
10-13-2005, 10:06 AM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Last time I checked, the score was still 1-1 when that play happened.

Last time I checked, Pablo Ozuna stole second base after that play happened.

Last time I checked, Joe Crede belted an 0-2 meatball to the left field wall to score the winning run after that play happened.

Last time I checked, it's not possible to say you "stole" a game when, at worst, it would have been tied heading into extra innings barring that call.

The meme apparently has been spread: that call won the game for the White Sox. Apparently it's been elevated to Steve Bartman status, and that Pablo's awesome steal and Joe's clutch hit don't factor into it. THAT CALL, and that call alone, gave the White Sox the lead and the game, apparently.

I'm not buying it.

Gospel.

Risk

MeteorsSox4367
10-13-2005, 10:09 AM
What cannot be overlooked is the fact that Buehrle was awesome, Crede - God love 'em - was money AGAIN and Pierzynski was typical Pierzynski in that he found a way to help the Sox win.

I know I'm biased as a Sox fan, but it did look like Paul kinda double-squeezed his glove as though he didn't catch the ball cleanly.

Whatever. Series is tied 1-1. Let's take 3 in LA and get ready for the I-55 World Series.

Jerko
10-13-2005, 10:09 AM
AJ said it best when some moron asked him if he felt guilty about winning the game. He said "no, did they feel guilty when they won game 1"? Perfect answer. Also, the Angels claim that the ump made an "out" gesture really had nothing to do with the play unless Paul has eyes in the back of his head. No way he saw that unless he pulled an "exorcist" and turned his head completely around. :angry:

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 10:14 AM
AJ said it best when some moron asked him if he felt guilty about winning the game. He said "no, did they feel guilty when they won game 1"? Perfect answer. Also, the Angels claim that the ump made an "out" gesture really had nothing to do with the play unless Paul has eyes in the back of his head. No way he saw that unless he pulled an "exorcist" and turned his head completely around. :angry:

I agree with the Angels players who say that the fist pump strike 3 call looked like a "he's out" call, which made them start running toward the dugout. But if you look at Josh Paul's actions, he started toward the dugout IMMEDIATELY after the play and before this fist pump was even done, so yeah, it may have looked like a "he's out" signal to 8 of 9 Angels players, but it couldn't have to the one that counted, Josh Paul. The only facet of this that I might agree with the Angels players is that none of the other 8 players would have thought to grab the ball that Josh Paul rolled back to the mound and try to get AJ out themselves, since they thought the inning was over. But even that is doubtful, as AJ was almost to first base already.

epgalsoxfan
10-13-2005, 10:16 AM
i think it all comes down to if there was any chance josh paul didnt catch it clean he should have tagged AJ..pure and simple. I've watched the replay so many times and it looks like it hit the dirt...so even if there was any doubt josh paul should have tagged him...maybe he was playing it off too....if i walk away and throw the ball to the mound everyone will think it was a clean catch...anyways, who knows...he didnt tag aj so thats that.

Madvora
10-13-2005, 10:19 AM
Even a lot of people on the Angels mlb board are saying this.


- Paul still could have tagged him to be sure

- They still had time to throw to first because Erstad was standing there covering when the ball was rolled back to the mound.

PatK
10-13-2005, 10:22 AM
They showed one camera angle that showed the ball touching the ground.

It definately didn't bounce into his glove, but it made contact.

If you look at some of the other angles, if it would have landed cleanly, you would have seen his glove underneath the ball the whole time. That wasn't the case.

It was very close, no matter which way it was called. But the game is over. We won. Time to forget about this and start focusing our attention on tomorrow.

Let the mediots and whiners argue over this one.

Bucky F. Dent
10-13-2005, 10:30 AM
As has been stated before, no one scored on the play, and no one prevented Paul from tagging AJ.

Hey! The angels committed three errors, and left three runners on base in scoring position. In a one run game, those are the mistakes that kill you! Not some garbage about a dropped third strike.

asindc
10-13-2005, 10:33 AM
they have to be contreversial so right minded people like us will call in and tell them theyre crazy.

Here's to Cal Eldred

Whenever you hear someone say something provocative or even worse, stupid, on talk radio, keep the wise quote above in mind. Only rarely is the guy saying something stupid actually that stupid. He keeps his job in part by getting people to call into the show and gripe, argue, complain, moan, etc. It's best not to get worked up about it.

tebman
10-13-2005, 10:40 AM
They showed one camera angle that showed the ball touching the ground.

It definately didn't bounce into his glove, but it made contact.

If you look at some of the other angles, if it would have landed cleanly, you would have seen his glove underneath the ball the whole time. That wasn't the case.

It was very close, no matter which way it was called. But the game is over. We won. Time to forget about this and start focusing our attention on tomorrow.

Let the mediots and whiners argue over this one.
Amen! Had Derek Jeter been at bat in that situation, we would be hearing what a gutsy and heads-up move that was, and isn't he the best at working an at-bat, and now this sets up the classic confrontation between the Yankees and the Cardinals, and blah, blah, blah...

It's the umpire's call! And he made it, defended it, and ultimately checked with the 3rd base ump who agreed. What else is there to discuss? Josh Paul will probably have haunting dreams about his non-tag of Pierzynski and his non-throw of Ozuna for the rest of his career. The hanging pitch to Crede will probably gnaw at Escobar for a long time too.

There's another game Friday. That's what both teams need to worry about.

Procol Harum
10-13-2005, 10:43 AM
The hanging pitch to Crede will probably gnaw at Escobar for a long time too.

Here's hopin'....we could use a leg up against that bullpen of theirs--them boys is good.

tdh11
10-13-2005, 10:45 AM
Amen! Had Derek Jeter been at bat in that situation, we would be hearing what a gutsy and heads-up move that was, and isn't he the best at working an at-bat, and now this sets up the classic confrontation between the Yankees and the Cardinals, and blah, blah, blah...



Ahmen! Brother!

1951Campbell
10-13-2005, 10:48 AM
Amen! Had Derek Jeter been at bat in that situation, we would be hearing what a gutsy and heads-up move that was, and isn't he the best at working an at-bat, and now this sets up the classic confrontation between the Yankees and the Cardinals, and blah, blah, blah...


Another way to look at it is: a team better than the Angels would've shrugged the play off and gotten the next batter out. Even Scoscia said the Angels did not play well enough "to absorb" such a mistake.

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 10:53 AM
maybe he was playing it off too....if i walk away and throw the ball to the mound everyone will think it was a clean catch.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen.

The catcher will pick a ball out of the dirt on a swinging third strike and not tag the runner but just act like they caught it cleanly. The umpire never actually calls the batter out but once they reach the dugout it's too late anyway.

tdh11
10-13-2005, 10:59 AM
I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen.

The catcher will pick a ball out of the dirt on a swinging third strike and not tag the runner but just act like they caught it cleanly. The umpire never actually calls the batter out but once they reach the dugout it's too late anyway.

I have seen this happen at least 3 times. A once to end an inning and twice in the middle of innings. Good heads up play by AJ

Law11
10-13-2005, 11:06 AM
People are talking about the umps fist motion as being the out. Now just to add to that. Remeber earlier in the game when Paulie got called out on a check swing. Remeber Eddings reaction. He made the out call emphatically by pulling his arm back (Like starting a lawnmower) We knew paulie was out.
he didnt do that in the 9th.. Just to add fuel to this.. :supernana:

Jess1210
10-13-2005, 11:15 AM
Exactly, it's not the call itself that made the Sox win...it's the clutch plays that happend afterwards! Here's a gem from Michael Ventre's rant on msnbc.com about needing instant replay in MLB:

"If the ninth inning had ended the way the home-plate umpire initially signaled and he did so not once, but twice the Angels would have been traveling back to Anaheim with a 2-0 lead in the best-of-seven series."

Oh really? The Angels were a lock to win in extra innings? Please.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9679568/

CHEESESOXER
10-13-2005, 11:20 AM
There's something we have that the whinoeroos do NOT have-a win!!

Skeeerew them.
They remind me of gb puker fans.

1951Campbell
10-13-2005, 11:27 AM
"If the ninth inning had ended the way the home-plate umpire initially signaled and he did so not once, but twice the Angels would have been traveling back to Anaheim with a 2-0 lead in the best-of-seven series."



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9679568/

Oh, 1-1 after 9 now means a win for the visiting team? Must've missed that new rule.

Ventre's a jackass.

TDog
10-13-2005, 11:28 AM
AJ said it best when some moron asked him if he felt guilty about winning the game. He said "no, did they feel guilty when they won game 1"? Perfect answer. Also, the Angels claim that the ump made an "out" gesture really had nothing to do with the play unless Paul has eyes in the back of his head. No way he saw that unless he pulled an "exorcist" and turned his head completely around. :angry:

In the quotes I read, the question for AJ was if he felt "lucky." It wouldn't surprise me if he was misquoted somewhere.

fusillirob1983
10-13-2005, 11:28 AM
If the Angels had any sort of scouting report at all, they probably would have tried to get Crede to go fishing on 4 straight pitches, if it took that many, instead of throwing it right down the middle.

1951Campbell
10-13-2005, 11:30 AM
There's something we have that the whinoeroos do NOT have-a win!!

Skeeerew them.
They remind me of gb puker fans.

Or Bears fans after the Majikowski over-the-line-of-scrimmage game. :D:

LongLiveFisk
10-13-2005, 11:37 AM
To those whining that we stole one, *****. Using the same "we-lost-because-of-this-one-play" philosophy, you can say the same for the Sox. If Crede throws home in Game 1 (which I was screaming at my tv for him to do), then Run #3 does NOT score for the Angels. And guess what? We lost 3-2. Yes, that run ended up deciding the game, but the bottom line is, both teams had many opportunities in both games. If either team takes advantage of those opportunities, then these individual plays are most likely a non-factor.

So now it's back to the best of 3. Go White Sox!!! :bandance:

champagne030
10-13-2005, 11:40 AM
Exactly, it's not the call itself that made the Sox win...it's the clutch plays that happend afterwards! Here's a gem from Michael Ventre's rant on msnbc.com about needing instant replay in MLB:

"If the ninth inning had ended the way the home-plate umpire initially signaled and he did so not once, but twice the Angels would have been traveling back to Anaheim with a 2-0 lead in the best-of-seven series."

Oh really? The Angels were a lock to win in extra innings? Please.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9679568/

"Michael Ventre is a frequent contributor to NBCSports.com and a free-lance writer based in Los Angeles."

I think it's pretty clear that Mikey is a homer.......:whiner:

34 Inch Stick
10-13-2005, 11:57 AM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Last time I checked, the score was still 1-1 when that play happened.

Last time I checked, Pablo Ozuna stole second base after that play happened.

Last time I checked, Joe Crede belted an 0-2 meatball to the left field wall to score the winning run after that play happened.

Last time I checked, it's not possible to say you "stole" a game when, at worst, it would have been tied heading into extra innings barring that call.

The meme apparently has been spread: that call won the game for the White Sox. Apparently it's been elevated to Steve Bartman status, and that Pablo's awesome steal and Joe's clutch hit don't factor into it. THAT CALL, and that call alone, gave the White Sox the lead and the game, apparently.

I'm not buying it.

It would be like walking out in a James Bond movie when 007 is tied up and the bad guy is making his speech as the laser approaches. Sure it is a significant moment but the most important part of the movie has not happened yet.

The_Floridian
10-13-2005, 12:05 PM
People are talking about the umps fist motion as being the out. Now just to add to that. Remeber earlier in the game when Paulie got called out on a check swing. Remeber Eddings reaction. He made the out call emphatically by pulling his arm back (Like starting a lawnmower) We knew paulie was out.
he didnt do that in the 9th.. Just to add fuel to this.. :supernana:

Agreed. It's not like the guy went all Enrico Palazzo with the call. He just held up a fist. Angels made the assumption.

maurice
10-13-2005, 12:41 PM
I'm sure that most of my points below (if not all of them) already have been made by other posters somewhere on this site, but I think it might be useful to consolidate the lies told by sports blabbers and the facts that debunk those lies:

Lie #1 - Josh Paul caught the ball cleanly

The last enhanced super-slow-motion replay shown on Fox (and mlb.com)showed that the ball changed directions before it entered Paul's mitt. The direction change almost certainly was caused by the ball hitting the ground. Even discarding this replay (and the laws of physics), there is no way in hell that the remaining replays conclusively show that Paul caught the ball cleanly. In fact, the position of his mitt (palm down) very near the dirt on a sharp split-fingered pitch strongly indicates that he pushed the sinking ball down into the dirt, trapping it. This was the call made by the home plate umpire, affirmed by the third base umpire, and officially confirmed by the crew chief and supervisor after reviewing the replay. If MLB used NFL-style replay, the play as called would not have been overruled, because the replays were, at best, inconclusive.

Lie #2 - Paul rolled the ball because the ump indicated "out"

Actually, the ump indicated "strike 3." Even the extremely anti-Sox Baseball Tonight crew, after closely examining the game tape, agreed with the ump's contention that his fist pump consistently means "strike" and not "out." At other points during the game, the ump demonstrated a much more elaborate "out" call. Moreover, nobody is claiming that the ump said "out." Finally, calling strike 3 is the correct call. It was a strike, but Paul committed an error by dropping it and failing to finish the play. The replay shows that the ump watched Paul closely after calling strike 3, because he immediately believed that it was a dropped 3rd strike and expected Paul to finish the play. The ump never turned his back on the field or did anything else that would indicate the the inning was over.

Lie #3 - Calling "strike 3" is the same as calling "you're out"

This is a favorite among people who don't understand the rules of baseball, especially the "dropped 3rd strike" rule. When AJ swung and missed, the pitch was strike 3, and AJ K'ed. When Paul dropped the ball and failed to finish the play, he commited an error, and AJ was safe. Thus, "strike 3" is the correct call, even though AJ is safe. That's why it's call a "dropped 3rd strike." The K doesn't come off the board because the catcher screwed up. In the past, pitchers have K'ed more than 3 batters in a single inning because of dropped 3rd strike calls.

Lie #4 - Paul knew he caught it

First, Paul didn't know ****. As Sox fans well know, he's a bad and stupid player. That's why the Sox got rid of him. Second, it doesn't matter what Paul believes. It's the umpire's call. Unless the ump says "out," the play continues. At the very least, you should take the very easy opportunity to tag the runner on any ball close to the dirt instead of rolling it on the ground.

Lie #5 - The Angels left the field

No, Paul left the field. Every other Angels player remained on the field. Most significantly, Erstad remained right next to 1B to accept a throw to finish the play. If the call was obviously wrong, Erstad would have been the first person in the Angel's 1B dugout.

Lie #6 - The call cost the Angels the game

This is total BS. The game was tied at the time. If Paul didn't screw up, the game would have gone into extra innings with a dominant Buehrle returning to the mound. He had shown no signs of tiring and threw fewer than 100 pitches. The Angels hadn't scored off of him since the 5th and were retired in very meek fashon in the 9th. Moreover, while the Angels already had burned through most of the top guys in their tired pen, the Sox still had everybody available and well-rested in their very good pen. Actually, the Angels lost the game because they committed 3 errors and only scored 1 run in 9 innings. The middle of their order was 0-11, and they didn't do anything with RiSP. Finally, after the call, the Angels allowed Ozuna to steal 2B without a throw and hung an 0-2 pitch to Crede, ending the game.

Lie #7 - The fist-pump caused Paul to roll the ball

The lie that the fist-pump meant "out" already has been debunked. Some reporters have added to this lie and claimed that Paul saw the fist-pump, thought it was the "out" call, and then decided to roll the ball. However, the replay shows that Paul's back was facing the ump when the fist-pump occurred; therefore, he didn't see it, and it didn't cause him to do anything. In addition, he rolled the ball before the ump began his fist-pump. Basic logic dictates that the roll could not have been caused by something that happened after the roll.

Lie #8 - AJ is a "bad guy" who "tricked" everybody

The replay shows that AJ swung, missed, and continued his momentum towards the Sox dugout with the expectation that he would be quickly tagged by the catcher, per MLB custom. When Paul rolled the ball towards the mound wihout tagging him (and with the realization that the ump never called him out), AJ sprinted to 1B. It was an extremely heads-up move. Nothing about AJ's conduct is remotely "bad" or "tricky."

batmanZoSo
10-13-2005, 12:45 PM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Last time I checked, the score was still 1-1 when that play happened.

Last time I checked, Pablo Ozuna stole second base after that play happened.

Last time I checked, Joe Crede belted an 0-2 meatball to the left field wall to score the winning run after that play happened.

Last time I checked, it's not possible to say you "stole" a game when, at worst, it would have been tied heading into extra innings barring that call.

The meme apparently has been spread: that call won the game for the White Sox. Apparently it's been elevated to Steve Bartman status, and that Pablo's awesome steal and Joe's clutch hit don't factor into it. THAT CALL, and that call alone, gave the White Sox the lead and the game, apparently.

I'm not buying it.


Scisocia has it right that they didn't play well enough to absorb something like that. Bitching is for fans. The way these two teams are playing (i.e. poorly), any umpire's call is going to be magnified.

Chez
10-13-2005, 01:05 PM
Lie #4 - Paul knew he caught it

First, Paul didn't know ****. As Sox fans well know, he's a bad and stupid player. That's why the Sox got rid of him. [/QUOTE]


If I remember correctly, Josh Paul has a degree from Vanderbilt and was a heads-up player who was praised for his leadership qualities when he was here. The Sox "got rid of him" after he ran out of options and was claimed on waivers by the Cubs. I don't think he's bad or stupid -- probably the smartest (and best) third string catcher in baseball!

SouthSide_HitMen
10-13-2005, 01:11 PM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Your mistake was listening to sports radio which is part of an evil plot to get our nation's collective IQ under 50 by the year 2010 (and they are ahead of schedule in case you haven't noticed).

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 01:14 PM
If I remember correctly, Josh Paul has a degree from Vanderbilt and was a heads-up player who was praised for his leadership qualities when he was here. The Sox "got rid of him" after he ran out of options and was claimed on waivers by the Cubs. I don't think he's bad or stupid -- probably the smartest (and best) third string catcher in baseball!

Paul may be an extremely intelligent person, but last night's incident proves that he's a stupid player. Virtually every other catcher would have thrown to first just to be sure the out was recorded.

tebman
10-13-2005, 01:14 PM
Your mistake was listening to sports radio which is part of an evil plot to get our nation's collective IQ under 50 by the year 2010 (and they are ahead of schedule in case you haven't noticed).

50? Is the goal that high?

daveeym
10-13-2005, 01:33 PM
Agreed. It's not like the guy went all Enrico Palazzo with the call. He just held up a fist. Angels made the assumption. Yeah he had already gone Enrico Palazzo on PK earlier in the game.:cool:

daveeym
10-13-2005, 01:38 PM
Paul may be an extremely intelligent person, but last night's incident proves that he's a stupid player. Virtually every other catcher would have thrown to first just to be sure the out was recorded. I won't go as far as saying he's a stupid player but agree along the lines of book smarts doesn't always transfer over to playing smarts, common sense etc. Some of the smartest people I know are also the most stupid in a lot of facets.

maurice
10-13-2005, 01:38 PM
Paul may be an extremely intelligent person, but last night's incident proves that he's a stupid player. Virtually every other catcher would have thrown to first just to be sure the out was recorded.

Right. There were other examples of his lack of baseball IQ with the Sox. He was not a "heads-up player." On the contrary, he was a AAA player who was praised for his versatility -- which is damning him with faint praise. His status as a AAA player is what caused the "options" issue. Players who are good enough to make the MLB squad do not run out of options.

:versatile
There's a reason that my WSI tag is ": versatile" and not ":heads-up-player."

tebman
10-13-2005, 01:40 PM
I won't go as far as saying he's a stupid player but agree along the lines of book smarts doesn't always transfer over to playing smarts, common sense etc. Some of the smartest people I know are also the most stupid in a lot of facets.

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/miscreview/moviesbaseball3.jpg

"Don't think -- just throw!"

alohafri
10-13-2005, 01:49 PM
I've already showed a few skeptical people the clip of the play on MLB.com..and it convinced them that the ball was not caught. Toward the end of the clip, there is a head-on slo-mo shot of the play and the ball very clearly hit the ground and bounced into Paul's glove. I'm not saying Paul is smart, but he knew damn well he did not catch that ball and I believe he was trying to fool the umps just as sure as the day is long. Then he claims innocent and tries to undermine what AJ did. If Paul had tagged AJ, that is "admitting" that he did not catch the ball. Unfortunately for Paul, the ump was on to him and did not call AJ out.

I urge everyone to look at the clip on MLB.com and watch the heads-on shot towards the end of it.
---Mrs. Aloha

pudge
10-13-2005, 01:55 PM
Don't forget this lie:


Paul, knowing a) that he caught the ball, a fact that FOX replays confirmed, and b) the umpire signaled for strike three and then pumped his right fist to indicate the final out of the inning, tossed the ball toward the mound and ran into the dugout.

If you look at it again, the ump clenched his fist well after Paul threw the ball away.

Some of the reporting on this has just been sickening.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 01:58 PM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.What blown call? :?:

Damn, chesses, you still drinking this morning? :redneck

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 02:01 PM
I've already showed a few skeptical people the clip of the play on MLB.com..and it convinced them that the ball was not caught. Toward the end of the clip, there is a head-on slo-mo shot of the play and the ball very clearly hit the ground and bounced into Paul's glove. I'm not saying Paul is smart, but he knew damn well he did not catch that ball and I believe he was trying to fool the umps just as sure as the day is long. Then he claims innocent and tries to undermine what AJ did. If Paul had tagged AJ, that is "admitting" that he did not catch the ball. Unfortunately for Paul, the ump was on to him and did not call AJ out.

I urge everyone to look at the clip on MLB.com and watch the heads-on shot towards the end of it.
---Mrs. AlohaI've looked at that clip a couple dozen times and it still looks to me like the webbing was between the ball and the ground when it bounced up. But the bottom line is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE. There is no way the umpire can see that. If it looks like a trap from his vantage point, that's the way he's going to call it.

daveeym
10-13-2005, 02:02 PM
I've already showed a few skeptical people the clip of the play on MLB.com..and it convinced them that the ball was not caught. Toward the end of the clip, there is a head-on slo-mo shot of the play and the ball very clearly hit the ground and bounced into Paul's glove. I'm not saying Paul is smart, but he knew damn well he did not catch that ball and I believe he was trying to fool the umps just as sure as the day is long. Then he claims innocent and tries to undermine what AJ did. If Paul had tagged AJ, that is "admitting" that he did not catch the ball. Unfortunately for Paul, the ump was on to him and did not call AJ out.

I urge everyone to look at the clip on MLB.com and watch the heads-on shot towards the end of it.
---Mrs. AlohaHOLY ****, great shot, it not only hit once but twice, the ball jumps up about 2 inches into his glove and then settles down back onto the ground. The shadows just make it extremely difficult to see it. And as my coworker just used the Seinfeld refernce, it went "Back and to the left."

scottjanssens
10-13-2005, 02:05 PM
Oh really? The Angels were a lock to win in extra innings? Please.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9679568/

What a load of ****. I don't know where this "A.J. conned the ump" bull**** came from, but Eddings at no time gave any indication of indecision or of changing his mind. He stood behind Paul instead of walking away from the plate and then followed the ball onto the infield... Please.

Gentlemen, you were wrong when you though the Red Sox fans were the Red Cubs fans. The Red Cubs fans are on the other coast.

maurice
10-13-2005, 02:09 PM
Don't forget this lie:

I added it. Thanks.

scottjanssens
10-13-2005, 02:10 PM
I've looked at that clip a couple dozen times and it still looks to me like the webbing was between the ball and the ground when it bounced up. But the bottom line is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE. There is no way the umpire can see that. If it looks like a trap from his vantage point, that's the way he's going to call it.

He's right. Having been an ump, I'm sure that Eddings assumed trapped based on the orientation of the glove and the fact it was resting heavily on the ground. I make the same assumption. Many catchers routinely tag batter on strike three if the ball is low, even if the catch it cleanly without their mitt touching the ground. Paul screwed up. His team and manager are protecting him as is proper. The media are making mountains out of mole hills to sell papers, get page hits, etc. by playing it up and mentioning outrageous things such as implimenting replay. Only one thing matters now: game 3.

scottjanssens
10-13-2005, 02:13 PM
HOLY ****, great shot, it not only hit once but twice, the ball jumps up about 2 inches into his glove and then settles down back onto the ground. The shadows just make it extremely difficult to see it. And as my coworker just used the Seinfeld refernce, it went "Back and to the left."

Dave, this all happens within the confines of the glove. That is it hit the webbing or the sides and bounced upwards. Based on side angles I'm pretty sure it didn't hit the ground. If it did, Paul simply would have tagged him.

As for those who suggest Paul rolling out the ball to sell it to the ump, you're wrong. There was nothing to sell to the ump. A.J. swung and missed. If you're going to sell you caught the ball you simply tag the batter. At that point it doesn't matter if you did or not.

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 02:13 PM
I've already showed a few skeptical people the clip of the play on MLB.com..and it convinced them that the ball was not caught. Toward the end of the clip, there is a head-on slo-mo shot of the play and the ball very clearly hit the ground and bounced into Paul's glove. I'm not saying Paul is smart, but he knew damn well he did not catch that ball and I believe he was trying to fool the umps just as sure as the day is long. Then he claims innocent and tries to undermine what AJ did. If Paul had tagged AJ, that is "admitting" that he did not catch the ball. Unfortunately for Paul, the ump was on to him and did not call AJ out.

I urge everyone to look at the clip on MLB.com and watch the heads-on shot towards the end of it.
---Mrs. Aloha

Mrs. A, I watched the play a dozen or so times last night, and while it does indeed "bounce up" into his mitt, I'm almost positive the webbing of his glove is between the ball and the dirt. You can see how far the ball is in his glove by looking at the entire sequence.

Definitely have to re-review this tonight, but that's the way I remember it.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 02:13 PM
I've looked at that clip a couple dozen times and it still looks to me like the webbing was between the ball and the ground when it bounced up.This is getting spooky. Are you and cheeses sharing a bong? :redneck

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 02:14 PM
What blown call? :?:

Damn, chesses, you still drinking this morning? :redneck

No, I stopped around 12:30 last night.

I'm trying to be objective here, help me out! :cool:

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 02:14 PM
HOLY ****, great shot, it not only hit once but twice, the ball jumps up about 2 inches into his glove and then settles down back onto the ground. The shadows just make it extremely difficult to see it. And as my coworker just used the Seinfeld refernce, it went "Back and to the left."

Does that mean there was a second pitcher hiding out somewhere? :cool:

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 02:17 PM
No, I stopped around 12:30 last night.

I'm trying to be objective here, help me out! :cool:This is absurd. It bounced. Even Cheech and Chong (you and #2 :D:) agree with that. Now, how you have the webbing of a vertical catchers mitt under it, which seems physically impossible, is beyond me. If that's all you got, even you guys have to admit there is no way you assume the world thinks you caught it and roll it out to the mound. It's just silly. :cool:

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 02:17 PM
I have seen this happen at least 3 times. A once to end an inning and twice in the middle of innings. Good heads up play by AJ


WOW. Check this out!

From an SI article: (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=cnnsi-whenyouassume&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns)
Flash back to the second inning. Pierzynski was sure he caught a third strike on Garret Anderson and fired it to third base without tagging Anderson. Only as the ball was thrown around the infield did Eddings make it known that the ball hit the ground. The ball was scuffed to prove the point.

"I was sure I caught it," Pierzynski said. "I didn't. It happens."

Had Anderson taken off for first base as AJ threw the ball to third he would've been called safe. The umpire DID NOT say "no catch" as Josh Paul assumed he should have. Anderson was only called out because he entered the dugout.

It also proves that Josh can say that he's certain he caught that ball all day long...

Flight #24
10-13-2005, 02:17 PM
Bottom line: IT DOESN"T MATTER IF HE CAUGHT IT OR NOT!!! The Tom Verducci quote from SI says it all - Paul admitted that whatever Eddings did had no bearing on his decision to roll the ball back to the mound.

"I caught the ball so I thought the inning was over," Paul said.

Stop right there. Paul's job for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is to catch. It is not his job to umpire. It is not his call.

As is plain to see, from the umpire's view, it looks like a trap. Paul didn't rely on the ump at all, in fact, as the replay shows he's already flipped the ball before the ump has had any motion at all!

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 02:20 PM
This is getting spooky. Are you and cheeses sharing a bong? :redneckNope. Look closely. You can see the webbing of the glove pressed down against the ground right where the ball had bounced. But as I said in another thread, it really makes no difference. The umpire has to call it from his vantage point and he had no way of seeing that. Almost any umpire will call a trap in that situation. A good catcher will tag the runner just to make sure. Paul screwed up.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Nope. Look closely. You can see the webbing of the glove pressed down against the ground right where the ball had bounced. But as I said in another thread, it really makes no difference. The umpire has to call it from his vantage point and he had no way of seeing that. Almost any umpire will call a trap in that situation. A good catcher will tag the runner just to make sure. Paul screwed up.Whatever you say, Chong. :redneck

Domeshot17
10-13-2005, 02:23 PM
You know whats funny, Every athlete since the age of 7 is taught to play until you are sure the play is dead, until you know the ball is dead, you hear a whistle, and if you arent 100% sure if you hear a whistle, keep playing.

Josh Paul must not have been listening when he was 7, Inturn, AJ had a good little league coach. ( Yes I know this probably isnt the case)

the biggest thing I think is over looked besides theplay not making the angels lose, is this was Paul's first inning catching behind an umpire who had a mecanichally different Strike3-Strike Out call from a normal umpire.

you check out espn.com, sportsline.com, and you see they are all equally torn, Jim Caple, in his really lame take on a peoples court article, kind of makes a good assumption that at best ( or worst depending on the view) Eddings and Paul are responsible 50/50.

Whatever, incase im wrong, We are headed to Anaheim tied 1-1, so we got better things to do than Dwell

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 02:23 PM
This is absurd. It bounced. Even Cheech and Chong (you and #2 :D:) agree with that. Now, how you have the webbing of a vertical catchers mitt under it, which seems physically impossible, is beyond me. If that's all you got, even you guys have to admit there is no way you assume the world thinks you caught it and roll it out to the mound. It's just silly. :cool:

The webbing on the bottom of his glove (the way he was holding it) extended pretty far out, and the ball was caught within the length of the webbing. I do agree that at some point the ball DID touch dirt, but that was when the ball was completely enfolded in Josh Paul's glove, so therefore, not a true dropped third strike.

maurice
10-13-2005, 02:24 PM
Help me out here, guys. How can the webbing be between the ball in the ground when the mitt is facing down? While I suppose it's theoretically possible that the sharp upward movement was caused by some unseen force other than the ground, the other factors at play (i.e., the downward arc of the pitch, the downward motion of the mitt, the downward positioning of the mitt, the mitt's proximity to the ground, the fact that the mitt doesn't move until the ball is inside, etc.) make the "force other than the ground" argument extremely unlikely. Ockham's Razor and all that.

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 02:25 PM
The webbing on the bottom of his glove (the way he was holding it) extended pretty far out, and the ball was caught within the length of the webbing. I do agree that at some point the ball DID touch dirt, but that was when the ball was completely enfolded in Josh Paul's glove, so therefore, not a true dropped third strike.

If the ball is touching the dirt at some point that's a trap at best IMO. Not a catch.

tdh11
10-13-2005, 02:26 PM
IT BOUNCED!!!

Leather doesnt make a hard object bounce nearly 90 degrees.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-13-2005, 02:26 PM
No, I stopped around 12:30 last night.

I'm trying to be objective here, help me out! :cool:

I watched it on MLB.com (Zapruder film 0:59 into it) which is the clearest view. The ball hit the webbing of the glove and bounced into the center of the mitt but it is still unclear if it also grazed the dirt. Looking at the 0:54 frame of the Zapruder film it it appears the ball was partially out of the mitt (like a snow cone) as Josh Paul brought the mitt up. You can clearly see the ball change direction - back and to the right - back and to the right.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp

None of this matters as the batter is not out until the umpire calls him out and the umpire never did call him out so the play continues. Paul never heard the out call nor did he see an out call. AJ didn't hear the out call.

I was at the game so I didn't hear the analysis but after Crede's game winning hit McCarver was truly classless saying the controversy would go on and on and on. With idiots like him in the media unfortunately that is the case.

maurice
10-13-2005, 02:26 PM
I do agree that at some point the ball DID touch dirt, but that was when the ball was completely enfolded in Josh Paul's glove, so therefore, not a true dropped third strike.

:?:
Now you really lost me. If you listen to the umps' press conference, they're very clear that it was not called a "drop." Rather, Paul trapped the ball by placing his mitt on top of it as it hit the dirt instead of catching it cleanly.

The rule doesn't require the catcher to literally drop the ball. An extremely wild pitch can also qualify as a "dropped 3rd strike."

NWSox
10-13-2005, 02:27 PM
My biggest issue with this controversy is that ninth inning calls get so magnified relative to other calls earlier in the game. With the pitching in this series, every call matters. So if we're not going to reopen the call on Rowand's slide, which the replays show could have gone either way, or the incredible moving strike zone last night, then you can't reopen any call. The Sox were the better team last night (primarily due to MB's performance) and deserved to win.

tdh11
10-13-2005, 02:27 PM
Help me out here, guys. How can the webbing be between the ball in the ground when the mitt is facing down? I suppose it's theoretically possible that the sharp upward movement was caused by some unseen force other than the ground, the other factors at play (i.e., the downward arc of the pitch, the downward motion of the mitt, the downward positioning of the mitt, the mitt's proximity to the ground, the fact that the mitt doesn't move until the ball is inside, etc.) make the "force other than the ground" argument extremely unlikely. Ockham's Razor and all that.

<sarcasm> no escobar has got some wicked late movement on his splitter </sarcasm>

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 02:28 PM
Help me out here, guys. How can the webbing be between the ball in the ground when the mitt is facing down? I suppose it's theoretically possible that the sharp upward movement was caused by some unseen force other than the ground, the other factors at play (i.e., the downward arc of the pitch, the downward motion of the mitt, the downward positioning of the mitt, the mitt's proximity to the ground, the fact that the mitt doesn't move until the ball is inside, etc.) make the "force other than the ground" argument extremely unlikely. Ockham's Razor and all that.:sahaf

It was clearly a catch. No first baseman has a webbing like Josh Paul!! My Angels were robbed.

maurice
10-13-2005, 02:31 PM
<sarcasm> no escobar has got some wicked late movement on his splitter </sarcasm>
:rolling:

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 02:33 PM
:?:
Now you really lost me. If you listen to the umps' press conference, they're very clear that it was not called a "drop." Rather, Paul trapped the ball by placing his mitt on top of it as it hit the dirt instead of catching it cleanly.

The rule doesn't require the catcher to literally drop the ball. An extremely wild pitch can also qualify as a "dropped 3rd strike."

Well, we're talking about different things here: what the umps think happened and what really happened.

I don't think the ball was trapped. I think it hit the webbing of his glove, which was on the ground, and bounced up into the meat of the glove. Paul closed his glove around the ball and sort of turned directions on the glove (I need to rewatch the video), and I believe the ball may have grazed the dirt -- while still being clenched in his glove -- when he shifted the direction of the glove before bringing it up as he stood up.

And I know that the "dropped third strike" thing is a misnomer, since any swung on strike not caught by the catcher qualifies, including those that hit the dirt first.

All this said, it's impossible for the ump to know for certain if it was a trap or caught, especially if he hears the ball hitting the ground, which it did (in my opinion, through the webbing of the glove), so the onus is on the catcher to tag out the runner just in case, and not just assume.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 02:35 PM
Well, we're talking about different things here: what the umps think happened and what really happened.

I don't think the ball was trapped. I think it hit the webbing of his glove, which was on the ground, and bounced up into the meat of the glove. Paul closed his glove around the ball and sort of turned directions on the glove (I need to rewatch the video), and I believe the ball may have grazed the dirt -- while still being clenched in his glove -- when he shifted the direction of the glove before bringing it up as he stood up.

And I know that the "dropped third strike" thing is a misnomer, since any swung on strike not caught by the catcher qualifies, including those that hit the dirt first.

All this said, it's impossible for the ump to know for certain if it was a trap or caught, especially if he hears the ball hitting the ground, which it did (in my opinion, through the webbing of the glove), so the onus is on the catcher to tag out the runner just in case, and not just assume.The question is does Spiderman have as big a web as Josh Paul? :?: :redneck

StrTrkker
10-13-2005, 02:36 PM
Heres my take on the 3rd strike play...

The replay does show some movement on the ball as it reaches Paul's catcher glove. A short bounce perhaps? Either way it is most definetly a trap and a trap is not a legal catch.

AJ as hes walking back to the dugout thought that the ball DID hit the ground and was ready to accept either a tag out by Paul or a throw to 1st for the sure out. But, once he saw that the Angels were trotting off the field w/o a putout by Josh Paul he high tailed it to 1st. Good job by AJ who took the situation for what it was and thus made a out into a man on base. Apparently a few innings before when Molino struck out and it hit the dirt he didnt hear the umpire call (speak) out so he tagged him and that made the umpire call the batter out.

Once Ozuna stole 2nd (and BTW using Paul at the end of the game instead of leaving Molina in wasnt very smart either...I know he had to at that point. Still...) and Joe Crede came up to bat Mike Sciosia should have walked Joe to get to Uribe. I mean the man has been Mr. Clutch but I think he got caught up in the controversy and the heat of the moment and completly forgot.

So blame these bad moves on The Angels...not the Umps. The Sox (A.J.) were alert on what was going on and took advantage of the game conditions and did the right things (Pablo's steal of 2nd) at the right time (Joe's hit) to win the game. :wink:

Game balls go to Mark, A.J, Joe and Pablo. Now lets get them in Anaheim, LA, California where ever they call home and show them what they consider a fluke lucky win for us is just good 'ol fashion White Sox Baseball.

maurice
10-13-2005, 02:36 PM
Okay, when you get the chance to look at it again, please come back and answer my initial question which was:
How can the webbing be between the ball and the ground when the mitt is facing down?

I can see you saying that the ball is "in the mitt" but also hit the ground before Paul pulled it up, but that's a trap and the call was correct.

daveeym
10-13-2005, 02:37 PM
Dave, this all happens within the confines of the glove. That is it hit the webbing or the sides and bounced upwards. Based on side angles I'm pretty sure it didn't hit the ground. If it did, Paul simply would have tagged him.

As for those who suggest Paul rolling out the ball to sell it to the ump, you're wrong. There was nothing to sell to the ump. A.J. swung and missed. If you're going to sell you caught the ball you simply tag the batter. At that point it doesn't matter if you did or not. It hit both the glove and the ground. no way it jumps like that from the webbing of the glove, the thick padding that catchers gloves have on the side, sure, the webbing not so much. And then he pushes the ball into the ground a second time before it stops moving. Correct call, game on Friday.:gulp:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 02:39 PM
Help me out here, guys. How can the webbing be between the ball in the ground when the mitt is facing down? While I suppose it's theoretically possible that the sharp upward movement was caused by some unseen force other than the ground, the other factors at play (i.e., the downward arc of the pitch, the downward motion of the mitt, the downward positioning of the mitt, the mitt's proximity to the ground, the fact that the mitt doesn't move until the ball is inside, etc.) make the "force other than the ground" argument extremely unlikely. Ockham's Razor and all that.

Cheeses, No. 2 and some of the other FJPCA( Friends of Josh Paul's Catching Ability) ought to try this little experiment at home.
:cool:

With your mitt hand, reach down to "catch" a low ball (i.e. one driving beneath your glove). Which way is the mitt facing, up or down?

Now, repeat the experiment, but before "catching" the low ball, reverse your arm to a backhand. Now which way is the mitt facing?

The only way Josh Paul gets UNDER the ball is if he contorts his arm into such a goofy angle he would literally be twisting his arm to the point of pain. He could execute the same catch 1000-times easier by simply catching it WITHOUT the backhand. God intended it that way when he designed Saint Josh's catching arm several million millenniums ago.

Stupid primates and they're stupid physiology... cost the California Angels of Anaheim (near LA) a game...
:wink:

Josh Paul caught the ball BACKHANDED. All you video freaks who've replayed it 1000-times (the FJPCA) are too busy blaming the umpires to note this fact about Saint Josh.

He ****ed up, and he is too much a busher to even admit it. What can we say to defend the FJPCA?
:redface:

tebman
10-13-2005, 02:41 PM
http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/corey.jpg

"Let me explain..."

tdh11
10-13-2005, 02:41 PM
I think we have fallen into an alternate universe where the rules of physics dont apply to baseballs dirt and leather.

I'm getting sick of explaning this to my co-workers and family

NWSox
10-13-2005, 02:41 PM
using Paul at the end of the game instead of leaving Molina in wasnt very smart either...I know he had to at that point. Still...

No he didn't. The other Molina was in the lineup as DH and could have played catcher and someone else could have been DH. I think Sciosia was saving Bengie last night.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 02:42 PM
Okay, when you get the chance to look at it again, please come back and answer my initial question which was:
How can the webbing be between the ball and the ground when the mitt is facing down?

If the ball is "in the mitt" but also hit the ground, then it's a trap and the call was correct.Look closely. At the moment the ball bounces, the mitt was not facing down but slightly upward. The webbing is pressed against the ground and that's where the ball bounces. As the ball came up into the glove he picked it up, turning the glove downward. I don't see it touching the ground anwhere.

tdh11
10-13-2005, 02:44 PM
No he didn't. The other Molina was in the lineup as DH and could have played catcher and someone else could have been DH. I think Sciosia was saving Bengie last night.

DH's can't play in the field that is why the angels carry 3 catchers

daveeym
10-13-2005, 02:45 PM
Look closely. At the moment the ball bounces, the mitt was not facing down but slightly upward. The webbing is pressed against the ground and that's where the ball bounces. As the ball came up into the glove he picked it up, turning the glove downward. I don't see it touching the ground anwhere. Regardless of the bounce, (I'll let you two focus on that) the ball is clearly touching the ground after the bounce and before he lifts his glove.

Dan H
10-13-2005, 02:45 PM
I don't care if the call was correct or not. It's over. The Sox head to Anaheim with the series tied. That is all that matters to me.

maurice
10-13-2005, 02:46 PM
The only way Josh Paul gets UNDER the ball is if he contorts his arm into such a goofy angle he would literally be twisting his arm to the point of pain.

Or if he "scoops" it by completely inverting his mitt, which he clearly didn't do. We're talking about a catcher's mitt here, not a regular baseball glove.

Sorry, guys. I respect your opinion and had no problem with the close calls that went against the Sox (like Crede at 2B, Rowand at home, or Konerko's K), but I really see this as a physics problem. Given all of the angles and gravity, all of the forces in play would continue to direct the ball down until the ground forces it back up and into the mitt.
:dunno:

NWSox
10-13-2005, 02:53 PM
DH's can't play in the field that is why the angels carry 3 catchers

I'm confused then because I remember the announcers discussing this as a possibility and saying that it happened in one of the LDS series (moving the DH back into the field). If you're positive, I stand corrected.

elrod
10-13-2005, 02:53 PM
The most important angle on the play is the one that shows where the umpire is standing. Behind the catcher, and in no position to see whether or not the ball grazed the ground or not. I think the webbing caught underneath the ball, but that's only after watching the ball from an angle that no umpire had. This isn't like Don Denkinger where he was staring right at the bag and the play. The ump's view is blocked on this sort of play. This is exactly why Josh Paul should have tagged AJ out for good measure. In fact, if you watch other strikeouts on low pitches (not in the dirt), both AJ and Molina regularly tag the batter to be safe. The ump's "strike mechanic" is obviously weird, but it is consistent across the whole game.

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 02:54 PM
I'm confused then because I remember the announcers discussing this as a possibility and saying that it happened in one of the LDS series (moving the DH back into the field). If you're positive, I stand corrected.

I think it happened to the Yankees. The pitcher would've needed to bat for himself if his spot came up.

Hitmen77
10-13-2005, 02:54 PM
...that the blown call by the ump singlehandedly tied the game AND gave the White Sox the lead.

Last time I checked, the score was still 1-1 when that play happened.

Last time I checked, Pablo Ozuna stole second base after that play happened.

Last time I checked, Joe Crede belted an 0-2 meatball to the left field wall to score the winning run after that play happened.

Last time I checked, it's not possible to say you "stole" a game when, at worst, it would have been tied heading into extra innings barring that call.

The meme apparently has been spread: that call won the game for the White Sox. Apparently it's been elevated to Steve Bartman status, and that Pablo's awesome steal and Joe's clutch hit don't factor into it. THAT CALL, and that call alone, gave the White Sox the lead and the game, apparently.

I'm not buying it.

Amen!

And don't forget that the call itself was not obviously a blown call. If it were, they wouldn't be running the play in hi-res super-slo-mo over and over. This is not the same as the '85 series call where the replay showed the runner was without a doubt out (or was it safe? I forget).

Iwritecode
10-13-2005, 02:58 PM
I think it happened to the Yankees. The pitcher would've needed to bat for himself if his spot came up.

Yep, game 4 of their ALDS. The CF had a pinch-hitter and the DH (Williams) moved to CF.

NWSox
10-13-2005, 03:00 PM
And don't forget that the call itself was not obviously a blown call. If it were, they wouldn't be running the play in hi-res super-slo-mo over and over. This is not the same as the '85 series call where the replay showed the runner was without a doubt out (or was it safe? I forget).

Exactly. I was trying to make this point earlier. This is a complete judgment call. No one complains about this if it happens in the middle of the game.

StrTrkker
10-13-2005, 03:07 PM
No he didn't. The other Molina was in the lineup as DH and could have played catcher and someone else could have been DH. I think Sciosia was saving Bengie last night.

Ahhh your right. I was thinking of his mutant brother.

StrTrkker
10-13-2005, 03:09 PM
I'm confused then because I remember the announcers discussing this as a possibility and saying that it happened in one of the LDS series (moving the DH back into the field). If you're positive, I stand corrected.

Geez...now im really confused here. I thought you could pull a double switch with the DH but I guess that only works in the NL with the pitcher.

kaufsox
10-13-2005, 03:17 PM
Lie #3 - Calling "strike 3" is the same as calling "you're out"

This is a favorite among people who don't understand the rules of baseball, especially the "dropped 3rd strike" rule. When AJ swung and missed, the pitch was strike 3, and AJ K'ed. When Paul dropped the ball and failed to finish the play, he commited an error, and AJ was safe. Thus, "strike 3" is the correct call, even though AJ is safe. That's why it's call a "dropped 3rd strike." The K doesn't come off the board because the catcher screwed up. In the past, pitchers have K'ed more than 3 batters in a single inning because of dropped 3rd strike calls.


This is the part that is just hilarious to listen to. AJ did strikeout, that is the official score. Escobar gets credit for a K, but because of the error, AJ can attempt to take first. It's so funny to hear folks saying stuff like "that should have been strike 3" well, it was and the ump had been using the same hand motions the entire game and we did not see his out signal. (lawnmower pull) I do wish MLB would set a standard for signs from the umps because it can get quite confusing, especially if you love to keep score like I do.

Huisj
10-13-2005, 03:33 PM
Check out this dandy little picture on Fox Sports of the rabid sox fans taunting and heckling Scot Shields. Or wait, no, they're just cheering because the Sox just won, that's it . . . but that's not what Fox will tell people.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/pgStory?contentId=4988026&pageNumber=12

The one guy in the picture who is yelling isn't even looking in Shields' direction, and the other guy isn't doing anything except standing up without an expression on his face. I guess that's what Fox calls yelling at a player. :rolleyes:

NWSox
10-13-2005, 03:49 PM
I checked out some other photos from Fox and look at this perfect image of the ball in Paul's glove. I think it's trapped against the ground, but regardless, it's well beyond "plausible" that the ball hit the ground.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/pgStory?contentId=4988026&pageNumber=1

maurice
10-13-2005, 04:05 PM
Here's a closeup of Paul's mitt just before the ball hits the dirt:
http://images.ibsys.com/2005/1013/5093903_400X300.jpg

About 90% of the webbing of the mitt is clearly visible on the left side of the ball and behind it, not under it. As Paul attempts to backhand the ball, the thumb portion of the mitt is pointing down and behind the ball, while and the rest of his fingers are pointing to the left. His shoulders are roughly shared up to the batter.

The fingers on a catcher's mitt are very heavily padded and the webbing is very small compared to the padding and webbing on a "normal" baseball glove. With a normal glove, I suppose it may be theoretically possible to further turn your shoulders and twist your wrist counterclockwise in an attempt to get the large webbing under the ball. However, I have to agree with George that it's physiologically impossible to get the small webbing of a catcher's mitt entirely under the ball from this angle without letting at least part of the ball strike the dirt. This would be true even if the mitt was stationary and the ball was traveling parallel to the ground. Here, however, both the ball and the mitt have a sharp downward trajectory.

The physiological impossibility of catching a ball cleanly from this angle is the reason that catchers sometimes "scoop" low pitches by rotating their mitt in the opposite direction. Backhanding a pitch this low causes the ball to become trapped between the mitt and the dirt, which is fine if all you're trying to do is prevent a wild pitch. However, it's not a clean catch and requires the catcher to finish the play by tagging the runner or throwing down to 1B, a very simple thing that Paul stupidly failed to do.

cheeses_h_rice
10-13-2005, 04:08 PM
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/united_artists/annie_hall/woody_allen/anniehall2.jpg

"But if there was a second movement of the ball..."

SOXSINCE'70
10-13-2005, 04:12 PM
Even a lot of people on the Angels mlb board are saying this.


- Paul still could have tagged him to be sure

- They still had time to throw to first because Erstad was standing there covering when the ball was rolled back to the mound.

It's good to know some people understand these concepts.:cool:

maurice
10-13-2005, 04:16 PM
With a normal glove, I suppose it may be theoretically possible to further turn your shoulders and twist your wrist counterclockwise in an attempt to get the large webbing under the ball.

NWSox's picture shows that Paul did not even attempt to further turn his shoulders or twist his wrist to get under the ball:
http://msn.foxsports.com/id/4987450_7_6.jpg
His shoulders remain squared to AJ and the angle of his wrist did not extend further to get the webbing under the glove. He simply continued the downward trajectory of his mitt, trapped the ball against the dirt, squeezed it, and lifted it up. Again, I suppose it's theoretically possible that he somehow reversed the downward motion of the ball at the last instant before it hit the dirt, but IMO that's extremely unlikely.

In any event, there is absolutely no way that any rational person could claim that Paul "clearly caught the ball" after looking at all the available information. You have to concede that there is at least a very strong probability that some portion of the ball touched the dirt.

Domeshot17
10-13-2005, 04:19 PM
anyone else reminded of that commercial and also the billboard on I-55

the difference between 2 inches is......

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 04:19 PM
In any event, there is absolutely no way that any rational person could claim that Paul "clearly caught the ball" after looking at all the available information.:sahaf

You don't understand the powers of Josh Paul!! He can fold space-time. He is the Kwizatz Haderach!!

ja1022
10-13-2005, 04:22 PM
If this play had happened 20 years ago, before super slo-mo and 87 different camera angles and high resolution technology, this issue would be dead and buried. It's a judgment call. In real time it's hard to tell and I've seen nothing in the replay that would have overturned the ruling on the field.

And if the umpires did blow the call, it really isn't all that different than a batter drawing a walk on a full count when the pitch really had the strike zone. How often does that happen? AJ got first and the Sox took advantage of it, like good teams should.

ode to veeck
10-13-2005, 04:24 PM
You don't understand the powers of Josh Paul!! He can fold space-time. He is the Kwizatz Haderach!!


LMAO! Can I order up some spice please!

:tomatoaward: can't believe this thread got to this ...

mcfish
10-13-2005, 04:24 PM
I'm confused then because I remember the announcers discussing this as a possibility and saying that it happened in one of the LDS series (moving the DH back into the field). If you're positive, I stand corrected.Relevant info is in bold font.

6.10 (b) The Rule provides as follows: A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) in the game. A Designated Hitter for the pitcher must be selected prior to the game and must be included in the lineup cards presented to the Umpire in Chief. The designated hitter named in the starting lineup must come to bat at least one time, unless the opposing club changes pitchers. It is not mandatory that a club designate a hitter for the pitcher, but failure to do so prior to the game precludes the use of a Designated Hitter for that game. Pinch hitters for a Designated Hitter may be used. Any substitute hitter for a Designated Hitter becomes the Designated Hitter. A replaced Designated Hitter shall not re enter the game in any capacity. The Designated Hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order. A runner may be substituted for the Designated Hitter and the runner assumes the role of Designated Hitter. A Designated Hitter may not pinch run. A Designated Hitter is "locked" into the batting order. No multiple substitutions may be made that will alter the batting rotation of the Designated Hitter. Once the game pitcher is switched from the mound to a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once the game pitcher bats for the Designated Hitter this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. (The game pitcher may only pinch hit for the Designated Hitter). Once a Designated Hitter assumes a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. A substitute for the Designated Hitter need not be announced until it is the Designated Hitter's turn to bat.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 04:33 PM
NWSox's picture shows that Paul did not even attempt to further turn his shoulders or twist his wrist to get under the ball:

His shoulders remain squared to AJ and the angle of his wrist did not extend further to get the webbing under the glove. He simply continued the downward trajectory of his mitt, trapped the ball against the dirt, squeezed it, and lifted it up. Again, I suppose it's theoretically possible that he somehow reversed the downward motion of the ball at the last instant before it hit the dirt, but IMO that's extremely unlikely.

In any event, there is absolutely no way that any rational person could claim that Paul "clearly caught the ball" after looking at all the available information. You have to concede that there is at least a very strong probability that some portion of the ball touched the dirt.That shot was a frame or two after the ball was in the glove and he was beginning to lift his hand. The shots below were posted by Fenway earlier. In the third and fourth shots you can see the ball in front of the webbing and then above it. The webbing and bottom of the glove are clearly pressed against the ground. What you can't determine with certainty from still pictures is the depth (i.e. how far into the glove the ball is at a given time. From the full motion, it still looks to me like the webbing is between the ball and the ground when it bounces. But there's no question it's very close. People are going to see what they're going to see.

Frankly, I'm tired of the subject. It doesn't matter because the umpire doesn't have this viewpoint. He has to call it from his viewpoint and from that vantage point it looked like a trap. End of story.

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/alcs_strike.jpg

chitownhawkfan
10-13-2005, 04:35 PM
Different subject, but in the postgame press conference with the umpires, did anybody hear how upset that DBag Bill Plaschke sounded? In his silly Daffy Duck voice "are you aware that your strike three looks like an out call..." He was pissed, and then Phil Rogers jumped in with a fastball down the middle of the plate for the ump "doesn't the catcher usually tag the runner in that situation?" It sounded like it got pretty heated between the writers from the two cities. Way to watch out for the southside Phil Rogers!

kitekrazy
10-13-2005, 05:21 PM
Another way to look at it is: a team better than the Angels would've shrugged the play off and gotten the next batter out. Even Scoscia said the Angels did not play well enough "to absorb" such a mistake.

Going to extra innings might have been something Soscia wanted to avoid since their bullpen has been put to use quite a bit and could be costly later on. I bet he was satisified with a split on the road.
The Sox bullpen hasn't really been used yet.

Gotta love Mark B. wanting to go 10 innings.

gf2020
10-13-2005, 05:31 PM
My favorite counter-argument regarding last night is how would I feel if the reverse happened to us last night.

You know what? I'm not an idiot. I can detach myself from my fandom and realize when we are catching a lucky break. But you know what? It wouldn't happen to us because AJ would never have made that mistake and Josh Paul would never be smart enough to keep running.

Frankly, this is a lot less shady than what Uribe did to the Cubs earlier this year when he deeked Derek Lee and I didn't even have a problem with that. You do everything necessary to win or you are not playing deep into October.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 05:40 PM
....

Frankly, this is a lot less shady than what Uribe did to the Cubs earlier this year when he deeked Derek Lee and I didn't even have a problem with that. You do everything necessary to win or you are not playing deep into October.

Whoops! Don't ask Paul Konerko about this subject!

:wink:

:hitless
"Go ahead, Wheels! Show me the love again! Who's the best shortstop you ever saw? I dare ya! I double-dog dare ya! "

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 05:41 PM
That shot was a frame or two after the ball was in the glove and he was beginning to lift his hand. The shots below were posted by Fenway earlier. In the third and fourth shots you can see the ball in front of the webbing and then above it. The webbing and bottom of the glove are clearly pressed against the ground. What you can't determine with certainty from still pictures is the depth (i.e. how far into the glove the ball is at a given time. From the full motion, it still looks to me like the webbing is between the ball and the ground when it bounces. But there's no question it's very close. People are going to see what they're going to see.

Frankly, I'm tired of the subject. It doesn't matter because the umpire doesn't have this viewpoint. He has to call it from his viewpoint and from that vantage point it looked like a trap. End of story.

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/alcs_strike.jpg

I agree. And, for the five hundredth time, I'm tired of the media and everyone else feeling sorry for the Angels, acting as though they aren't getting a fair shake. The White Sox haven't gotten a fair shake for most of this season, as they've been playing without their best hitter. What did they do in response? They went out and won ninety nine games, which proves that a focused, determined team can overcome any obstacle in its path. The media needs to think about this for a while and stop acting as though the Sox have been getting things handed to them, because that hasn't been the case.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 05:54 PM
...

Frankly, I'm tired of the subject. It doesn't matter because the umpire doesn't have this viewpoint. He has to call it from his viewpoint and from that vantage point it looked like a trap. End of story.



Not to disagree with your basic premise (that it's the umpire's call and it looked like a trap), but I have some very bad news for you and all the other video junkies who keep looking for definitive proof: THE CENTER FIELD CAMERA IS THE WORST ANGLE FOR PROVING YOUR CASE.

You want definitive video proof? Show me video replay from the camera angle mounted near ground level and directly to the left (or right) of Josh Paul's ill-fated glove. It doesn't exist.

You don't know anymore about whether Josh Paul caught or trapped that ball than does the dope with $2 tote standing 100 feet behind the finish line at the race track know whether his horse won a photo finish. The angle is wrong and it tricks you into believing what never happened.

This isn't a race track and the definitive photographic proof doesn't exist. To the contrary a bunch of non-definitive bull**** angles exist trapping all the weak-minded idiots into believing what their pea-sized brains can't comprehend: the video doesn't prove jack**** because the angle is wrong to prove anything!

tdh11
10-13-2005, 05:54 PM
I was listening to Dan Patrick today and he kept blaming eddings (the ump) for the whole thing. But Jeff Brantley came on and ripped him and everybody else who came on saying that the ball hit the dirt and Josh Paul screwed up. Basically what every sane person I talked to.

Jerko
10-13-2005, 05:55 PM
Do yourselves a favor guys and gals. Do NOT listen to sportsblab radio or watch espn or anything until after Game 3. Everybody thinks the ball was caught and everyone thinks that the catcher, facing the field, saw the umpire BEHIND him signal out. He did not, as cheeses said earlier, and he's the only person that really matters here. Again, ignore this crap and just get ready for game 3.

ajtokarz
10-13-2005, 05:57 PM
If you look close enough at the ball you can notice the movement....

Back....and to the left.....Back....and to the left.....

Zapruder was working the Centerfield Cam.

maurice
10-13-2005, 05:59 PM
One more point. In all of the pics and videos, the webbing of Paul's mitt was somewhere between perpendicular to the ground and a 45 degree angle to the ground. To catch a sharply-downward-arcing splitter 100% in the webbing and have it bounce upward (without any chance that even a portion of the ball hits the dirt) the webbing would need to be lying nearly flat on the ground. If the webbing were lying flat on the ground and the ball hit dead center in the webbing, the forces theoretically could have caused the ball to bounce up into the mitt without actually hitting the dirt. That happens all the time when the catcher scoops the ball, but it's anatomically impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) to accomplish this feat with a backhanded stab of a catcher's mitt at a fast-moving and sharp-breaking pitch thrown by a MLB pitcher.

Jerko
10-13-2005, 06:04 PM
I just broke my rule and turned on ESPN. No dinner for me, and I'm grounded till after the game tomorrow. :angry: :angry: :angry:

maurice
10-13-2005, 06:07 PM
Okay, I lied about having only one more point. :redface:

I'd just like to underscore the growing list of extreme anti-Sox media personalities who have refused to parrot the BS line that "it was a clear catch, the ump called AJ out, and it cost the Angels a certain victory." IIRC, that list currently includes famed Sox-haters Moronotti, Reynolds, Kruk, Neyer, and Brantley.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 06:11 PM
Not to disagree with your basic premise (that it's the umpire's call and it looked like a trap), but I have some very bad news for you and all the other video junkies who keep looking for definitive proof: THE CENTER FIELD CAMERA IS THE WORST ANGLE FOR PROVING YOUR CASE.

You want definitive video proof? Show me video replay from the camera angle mounted near ground level and directly to the left (or right) of Josh Paul's ill-fated glove. It doesn't exist.

You don't know anymore about whether Josh Paul caught or trapped that ball than does the dope with $2 tote standing 100 feet behind the finish line at the race track know whether his horse won a photo finish. The angle is wrong and it tricks you into believing what never happened.

This isn't a race track and the definitive photographic proof doesn't exist. To the contrary a bunch of non-definitive bull**** angles exist trapping all the weak-minded idiots into believing what their pea-sized brains can't comprehend: the video doesn't prove jack**** because the angle is wrong to prove anything!I'm sure you've seen it, but here's what the umpire supervisor had to say:
RICH RIEKER: We've looked at it in the truck. We've blown it up. I'm sure some of you have seen that angle. We have some technology, and Jerry Crawford saw it, also, the whole crew, and there was definitely a change in direction there. At this point I would say at best it's inconclusive. I wouldn't totally agree that the ball was caught, but there was a change in direction there that we saw and the replay is available to us.I'm pretty sure he's got better technology and a better view than we do, and he says at best it's inconclusive. Different people are going to look at it and take away different things. It looked to me like a catch, but I can certainly see how others can see something else. I guess that's why they call it inconclusive.:o:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 06:17 PM
I'm sure you've seen it, but here's what the umpire supervisor had to say:
I'm pretty sure he's got better technology and a better view than we do, and he says at best it's inconclusive. Different people are going to look at it and take away different things. It looked to me like a catch, but I can certainly see how others can see something else. I guess that's why they call it inconclusive.:o:

Of course it's inconclusive. I don't care if they blow up the angle onto a screen big enough to show on a drive-in theater screen. It's the wrong angle, and you simply don't know the relative position of the ball, the glove, and the dirt from one millisecond to the next. The camera HAS TO BE perpendicular to Paul's glove to prove anything.

Now if we can just explain this to the idiots running the NFL, there might be hope for saving pro football from the same "video proof" insanity.

Chisox353014
10-13-2005, 06:19 PM
Not to disagree with your basic premise (that it's the umpire's call and it looked like a trap), but I have some very bad news for you and all the other video junkies who keep looking for definitive proof: THE CENTER FIELD CAMERA IS THE WORST ANGLE FOR PROVING YOUR CASE.

You want definitive video proof? Show me video replay from the camera angle mounted near ground level and directly to the left (or right) of Josh Paul's ill-fated glove. It doesn't exist.


Actually, Fox was showing a replay from a low first-baseline camera that showed the trap the best IMO. I was just turning to my friend to say "wow, I don't know if that hit the ground" when they showed that replay and I quickly changed my mind. You could clearly see the fingers on his glove kicking upward and away from the ground. The ball was not visible, but the motion of the glove was consistent with something bouncing up into it. They only showed it about 2 or 3 times, but it was the most definitive angle, I thought. If anyone Tivo'd the game watch for that 1st base angle and look at what the glove does when the ball gets there.
Either way, it doesn't diminish the sheer assclownitude of Josh Paul failing to finish the play. :cool:

JB98
10-13-2005, 06:21 PM
I don't know whether Josh Paul is "stupid" but he is definitely a busher and I can point to several boneheaded plays he made with the White Sox to prove my point.

Josh Paul ****ing up that play last night was perfectly in character for a busher like him. A third-string catcher playing the ninth inning in a 1-1 playoff game? Mike Scioscia should have his head examined.

You should, too.

:cool:

Josh Paul is probably the worst defensive catcher we've had on the Sox in my lifetime. Even Don Wakamatsu (sp?) was better. Regardless of what people think of the call, once Ozuna was on first base, it was a given he would steal and get into scoring position. Josh Paul couldn't throw out my dead grandma.

Scioscia is a good manager, but there's not much question he erred in putting Paul into the game. Such a move would be akin to Ozzie sending Geoff Blum up to pinch-hit.

maurice
10-13-2005, 06:23 PM
The supervisor was responding to a line of questioning that falsely suggested that the replay conclusively proved that Paul definitely caught the ball. In this context, my understanding is that he was (1) denying that the reply conclusively proved it was caught, (2) suggesting that there was evidence that the call was correct (the movement), and (3) stating that reasonable people who doubt the call can, at best, say that the replay was inconclusive. Unfortunately, umpires are not orators and are not very good at clearly saying exactly what they mean, so the answers were unclear.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 06:30 PM
The supervisor was responding to a line of questioning that falsely suggested that the replay conclusively proved that Paul definitely caught the ball. In this context, my understanding is that he was (1) denying that the reply conclusively proved it was caught, (2) suggesting that there was evidence that the call was correct (the movement), and (3) stating that reasonable people who doubt the call can, at best, say that the replay was inconclusive. Unfortunately, umpires are not orators and are not very good at clearly saying exactly what they mean, so the answers were unclear.What no one disputes is that the ball bounced up. The supervisor said as much. Given that, there are only two possibilities I can think of:

1. the ball bounced off the ground - no catch
2. the ball bounced off the webbing of the glove - catch

When he says it's "at best inconclusive", I can only interpret that to mean that given the shadows and graininess of the digitally zoomed image, you can't tell for sure. Maybe the CIA can digitally enhance the image to the point you can see the seams on the baseball, but until then, it's just fodder for more arguments.

maurice
10-13-2005, 06:40 PM
Here's a great side-angle view:
http://whitesoxpride.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/aj1.jpg

This shows that the ball was only inches from the ground when it was still more than a foot from Paul's glove. It also shows that Paul's glove is perpendicular to the ground just before the ball bounced. Again, keep in mind that the ball was not floating parallel to the ground. It had a sharp, relatively downward trajectory.

Chisox003
10-13-2005, 06:55 PM
Oh, I'd be bitching alright...

...bitching that our catcher was so CARELESS as to ignore a basic fundamental of baseball - the insurance tag.

...bitching that our manager put a third-string catcher in to handle the bottom of the 9th in a tied ALCS game.

...bitching that our catcher let the runner take 2nd base EASILY.

...bitching that our reliever served up a cookie on an 0-2 count!

...and bitching that so many are trying everything in the world - including outright lying - to DEFEND that kind of playing at the CS level and instead blame an umpire for doing his job.
Best anything I've read all day....

I think it's time for all of us to move on, and leave the bickering to the mediots and Sox haters....

As Sox fans, we have more important things to discuss .... Like taking the series lead in game 3 tomorrow

bluestar
10-13-2005, 07:10 PM
What no one disputes is that the ball bounced up. The supervisor said as much.

There are still plenty people disputing it. I heard Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio this morning in his usual condescending manner telling Sox fans, "Look, WE are ESPN. We can watch the replay countless times. THE BALL DID NOT HIT THE DIRT! That is irrefutable. If you want to believe your fantasies about what happened go ahead, but everyone else in the country knows that Eddings blew the call."

It is the same with all the mediots insisting that Eddings signaled an out, when review of Eddings "mechanics" during the rest of the game proves that he was clearly signaling strike three. People choose to ignore the facts and believe whatever they wish.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2005, 08:22 PM
Here's a great side-angle view:
http://whitesoxpride.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/aj1.jpg

This shows that the ball was only inches from the ground when it was still more than a foot from Paul's glove. It also shows that Paul's glove is perpendicular to the ground just before the ball bounced. Again, keep in mind that the ball was not floating parallel to the ground. It had a sharp, relatively downward trajectory.:kneeslap: For a minute there I thought you were serious.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 10:30 PM
:kneeslap: For a minute there I thought you were serious.

Maurice's single frame photo is no less irrefutable evidence the ball was trapped than the utter nonsense being spewed elsewhere using videotape from the centerfield camera alleging irrefutable evidence Paul the Busher caught the ball cleanly.

:kneeslap: :kneeslap:

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 10:33 PM
Here's a great side-angle view:
http://whitesoxpride.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/aj1.jpg

This shows that the ball was only inches from the ground when it was still more than a foot from Paul's glove. It also shows that Paul's glove is perpendicular to the ground just before the ball bounced. Again, keep in mind that the ball was not floating parallel to the ground. It had a sharp, relatively downward trajectory.

Actually, from this angle, it looks like the bat boy has his hands in his pants.

Seriously, this discussion is moot. The Sox won, and the Angels lost. Period. Game 3 is tomorrow night. Forget about this.

Jurr
10-13-2005, 10:37 PM
Actually, from this angle, it looks like the bat boy has his hands in his pants.

Seriously, this discussion is moot. The Sox won, and the Angels lost. Period. Game 3 is tomorrow night. Forget about this.
God Bless You.

We have 7 more wins to get, and it's party time.

maurice
10-14-2005, 01:27 PM
Finally, irrefutable evidence at last! A federal judge and a scientist each have independently ruled that the call was correct. First, the judge (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0510140280oct14,1,7314437.story?coll=chi-news-hed):
U.S. District Judge Marvin Aspen, forming an opinion on "kind of prima facie evidence," decided that "the umpire's call was correct." . . . The judge said the primary evidence was the videotape and photographs. . . . "There are close calls, somebody has to make them, and I feel a lot of empathy with the umpire because he is dealing with a close call," Aspen said. "And no matter what he did, somebody would have been unhappy with him."
Next, the scientist (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0510140280oct14,1,7314437.story?page=2&coll=chi-news-hed):
Fermilab cosmologist Edward W. "Rocky" Kolb . . . added: "I would say as a completely objective White Sox fan, it's clear the ball was dropped." . . . "That could have been the first time quantum physics has entered a baseball game," he mused, before suggesting after some rumination that the ball was both caught and not caught. Two opposite things can happen at once in quantum physics. But not in baseball.

Chew on THAT, FOJP! :cool:

FarWestChicago
10-14-2005, 01:30 PM
Chew on THAT, FOJP! :cool:He already has his own FO club from years ago. FOV (http://www.flyingsock.com/glossary/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=145), the Friends Of Versatile. :D:

Ol' No. 2
10-14-2005, 01:46 PM
Finally, irrefutable evidence at last! A federal judge and a scientist each have independently ruled that the call was correct. First, the judge (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0510140280oct14,1,7314437.story?coll=chi-news-hed):

Next, the scientist (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0510140280oct14,1,7314437.story?page=2&coll=chi-news-hed):


Chew on THAT, FOJP! :cool:At least one person in that whole pile of trash has his head on straight:

Still, said Mick Kopina, group supervisor in the microscopy and trace unit at the Illinois State Police Crime Lab, "If I was the catcher responsible for the third out, if you don't hear him say `out,' your job is to stand up and tag the guy."

daveeym
10-14-2005, 02:01 PM
At least one person in that whole pile of trash has his head on straight: You know what else is bs? If the ball clearly did hit the ground and he called AJ out, not a SINGLE person would be crying that the they hosed the Sox. It would have been a non-issue explained away by how good the pitcher was, there were still 2 outs and their worst hitter was coming up. Paul screwed up and Ozuna and Crede won the damn game.

maurice
10-14-2005, 02:04 PM
Unfortunately, media reports stating both old and new lies continue. I edited my original post to include the latest lie -- that AJ is an evil trickster who fooled everybody on the play.

:rolleyes:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-14-2005, 02:10 PM
I will say one nice thing about all the media hysteria surrounding Josh the Busher and his D3K play. Thanks to Josh, the ALCS has completely eclipsed the NLCS as the story of the week. Even without Boston or the Yankees to keep the Northeast interested, the Sox/Angels are getting all the press clippings. Meanwhile Tony LaRussa and those piles of garbage from Houston and St. Louis are fighting over the media's scraps.

What a delightful post-season this has been so far.

:cool:

cheeses_h_rice
10-14-2005, 02:22 PM
I will say one nice thing about all the media hysteria surrounding Josh the Busher and his D3K play. Thanks to Josh, the ALCS has completely eclipsed the NLCS as the story of the week. Even without Boston or the Yankees to keep the Northeast interested, the Sox/Angels are getting all the press clippings. Meanwhile Tony LaRussa and those piles of garbage from Houston and St. Louis are fighting over the media's scraps.

What a delightful post-season this has been so far.

:cool:

I myself have only watched maybe an inning of that series, and normally I'm all over most postseason play when it comes to the final 2 rounds.

:gulp: