Bad Call at Angels Sox game

[Corey Balint]

The call was fine to me.

Josh Paul was at fault for not being in the rhythm of the game. He shouldve been used to Eddings calls by that point. He knew his strike call was a pump of the fist, he shouldve known to tag A.J.
However, we dont know all the actual events. We dont know if Eddings said anything, or what Sciosia or the Umps discussed on the field.
The call shouldve been the Third Base Umpires call. Sciosia shouldve went directly to him.
However, A.J. should have never started to walk to his dugout, i know from Little League ball, that once the player turns to his dugout, its an out. Yet again though, its different in the Bigs, and there are many more situations involved.

[sanddrag]

If the ball did hit the ground, even with the great cameras they have, it is just in between frames. The camera shows the ball maybe 6-8" ahead of the glove, and then shows it in the glove in the next frame. I guess we'll never really know what happened in between.

[KenWittlief]

What the cameras didnt catch is the batter quietly saying to the ump:

"These are not the droids your looking for

the ball hit the ground

you can move along to 1st base"

:^)

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

If the ball did hit the ground, even with the great cameras they have, it is just in between frames. The camera shows the ball maybe 6-8" ahead of the glove, and then shows it in the glove in the next frame. I guess we'll never really know what happened in between.

Yeah, i have to agree with that one shot. But in some other shots, which granted arent that great themselves, do show a change in direction by the ball before it entered the glove. Cold Pizza this morning had a whole segment on this event, and showed a few side angles that looked as if it did hit the ground. However they did show that one frame over and over again, where you saw glove below the ball. Yet i dont think it was in the glove yet. I also think that the next frame after that, it did change direction, but yet again, was it in the glove yet?

[Cory]

I saw the play on Baseball Tonight, this morning (rather ironic, eh?). After seeing it repetedly, it looked like the catcher had the ball.

At any rate, the ump had already called him out. He should have stuck by his decision, since he was the only one to see it. He shouldn't have changed it just because Pierzynski decided to get cute.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Cory

I saw the play on Baseball Tonight, this morning (rather ironic, eh?). After seeing it repetedly, it looked like the catcher had the ball.

At any rate, the ump had already called him out. He should have stuck by his decision, since he was the only one to see it. He shouldn't have changed it just because Pierzynski decided to get cute.

Like they have been saying though. The ump has that Out Call as his Strike call. So we really dont know what happened. The only way we would really know, is if the ump was mic'd and we heard him say "Out".

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

Like they have been saying though. The ump has that Out Call as his Strike call. So we really dont know what happened. The only way we would really know, is if the ump was mic'd and we heard him say "Out".

They showed a bunch of clips from earlier outs, and that was the same signal he made each time.

I didn't notice... does he do his strike call to the side, or is it the same fist pump as he does for outs?

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Cory

They showed a bunch of clips from earlier outs, and that was the same signal he made each time.

I didn't notice... does he do his strike call to the side, or is it the same fist pump as he does for outs?

Same fist pump.

Thats the major problem right now. Cuz his side signal means a clean swing with no ball contact. The 2nd signal was just his strike signal.

[KenWittlief]

this would be a hard case for the batter to argue, to make his point

Batter: Im absolutely certain the ball hit the ground
Any-rational-person: Ummmmm.... Then why did you swing at it?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

this would be a hard case for the batter to argue, to make his point

Batter: Im absolutely certain the ball hit the ground
Any-rational-person: Ummmmm.... Then why did you swing at it?

That happens all the time.

If you watched game one of the ALCS, Contreras' "forkball" ended up in the dirt after being swung on and missed multiple times.

[KelliV]

I have been a umpire for 6 years now and that call was 100% correct. Living near Chicago I saw it over and over again on the News and after carefully watching the video the ball bounced out of the glove and touched the ground. Drop 3rd, he was on the base. Sox win.
FYI to anyone trying to go to Chicago it is CRAZY!!! There are so many people in that city.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KelliV

I have been a umpire for 6 years now and that call was 100% correct. Living near Chicago I saw it over and over again on the News and after carefully watching the video the ball bounced out of the glove and touched the ground. Drop 3rd, he was on the base. Sox win.
FYI to anyone trying to go to Chicago it is CRAZY!!! There are so many people in that city.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

The call may have been correct, but there's absolutely no way to know, even with instant replay. You just can't definitvely tell from the video they have. To make an analogy, if it were football, and it was being reviewed whether or not the receiver made a catch without scooping it off the ground (ball hitting ground, then going into glove), there wouldn't have been any 'conclusive evidence' to overturn the play.

At any rate, if the correct call was made, it was by accident, since the home plate ump couldn't possibly have seen whether it hit the ground, and the 3rd base ump wasn't paying attention.

Ok here i go haha... The call was a drop third strike people..so If you were a catcher wouldnt you kno to automatically tag the batter to for sure know that he is out. Im sorry but the ball hit the ground before it hit the mit. It barely skimmed the dirt and jsut enough to get in the glove. It was a strike and the ump made a good call saying its strike 3....BUT he DID NOT say that the batter was out. Every stike 3 the ump pumps his fist. As a softball player for 14 years ive always been taught that if you get strike 3 run anways untill the unmpire calls you OUT...oviously the ump did not call him out so Pierzynski ran. then thats whent he controversy started. any good baseball player would run on strike 3 unless the ump called him OUT. and Pierzynski is a great example of a good baseball player and a runner. he knows what hes doing.

[sanddrag]

I'm not too big into baseball or the rules of it so I'm confused on something. Any time I get three strikes then decide to immediately run to first base, as long as the opponent team gets caught up in the confusion and doesn't throw the ball to someone to touch the base or tag me, then I'm safe?

Hrrm, getting on base by striking out; I bet'd work a couple times if you did it right, then they would catch on and know you were going to do it and have the ball ready to beat you to the base.

[kpugh]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I'm not too big into baseball or the rules of it so I'm confused on something. Any time I get three strikes then decide to immediately run to first base, as long as the opponent team gets caught up in the confusion and doesn't throw the ball to someone to touch the base or tag me, then I'm safe?

Hrrm, getting on base by striking out; I bet'd work a couple times if you did it right, then they would catch on and know you were going to do it and have the ball ready to beat you to the base.

You can only run if the catcher fails to catch that third strike. Since the batter has no way of knowing this it is a good idea to run until the ump calls you out, just in case the catcher dropped the ball. I believe this is where much of the controversy lies, whether the ball hit the ground before it hit the catcher's glove.