Bad Call at Angels Sox game

[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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by CourtneyB

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

Really, anymore debate about what happened is useless.

Nobody can prove it did hit the ground.

Nobody can prove it didn't.

[KenWittlief]

brings up an interesting question though: if they did decide to 'instrument' the field so refs can review a call, then what would it take?

High speed video cameras that can capture a thousand frames per second (slow motion video)?

sensors in the ground that can detect the ball hitting the plate, or the dirt?

stereoscopic (3D) video that would give the reviewer good depth perception?

Lasers everywhere, like alarm systems in museums, that will detect when a ball has crossed a line?

Im sure the ball flight path could be tracked with millimeter accuracy. How would you like that contract at your company?

[Denman]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

brings up an interesting question though: if they did decide to 'instrument' the field so refs can review a call, then what would it take?

High speed video cameras that can capture a thousand frames per second (slow motion video)?

sensors in the ground that can detect the ball hitting the plate, or the dirt?

stereoscopic (3D) video that would give the reviewer good depth perception?

Lasers everywhere, like alarm systems in museums, that will detect when a ball has crossed a line?

Im sure the ball flight path could be tracked with millimeter accuracy. How would you like that contract at your company?

sonar etc
here in england for the cricket they have this system called Hawkeye. It works out the speed and diretion of the ball. It helps them tell if a ball on the pads was going to hit the wicket or not
also i believe it is used in tennis too
Link

Originally Posted by Cory

Really, anymore debate about what happened is useless.

Nobody can prove it did hit the ground.

Nobody can prove it didn't.

you can prove it...look at the clips over and over again and look at the pictures...the catchers glove was covering the ball that was in the dirt. but proving that the ball hit the ground or not doesnt matter anyways. what matters is the umps call and the ump did not call him out. its the umps mistake and the batter made the right desion by running..because obviously he didnt hear the ump call him out. he just said strike 3. whether the ball hit the ground or not on strike 3 you HAVE TO call strike 3...no matter what.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by CourtneyB

you can prove it...look at the clips over and over again and look at the pictures...the catchers glove was covering the ball that was in the dirt. but proving that the ball hit the ground or not doesnt matter anyways. what matters is the umps call and the ump did not call him out. its the umps mistake and the batter made the right desion by running..because obviously he didnt hear the ump call him out. he just said strike 3. whether the ball hit the ground or not on strike 3 you HAVE TO call strike 3...no matter what.

No, you can't prove anything. It's a completely subjective matter.

And he did call strike three, he didn't call the out.

Like I said before, whether or not they made the right call, the umps screwed up. The home plate ump couldn't see whether the ball hit the ground or not. It was his responsibility to a) call the batter out after calling no contact and strike 3, or b) have the other ump (who wasn't even watching) signal whether or not the ball hit the ground.

But neither of those things happened. It's kind of a moot point, because from now on there won't be a single catcher that forgets to tag the batter after strike 3.

Originally Posted by Cory

No, you can't prove anything. It's a completely subjective matter.

And he did call strike three, he didn't call the out.

Like I said before, whether or not they made the right call, the umps screwed up. The home plate ump couldn't see whether the ball hit the ground or not. It was his responsibility to a) call the batter out after calling no contact and strike 3, or b) have the other ump (who wasn't even watching) signal whether or not the ball hit the ground.

But neither of those things happened. It's kind of a moot point, because from now on there won't be a single catcher that forgets to tag the batter after strike 3.

I never said he didnt call strike 3. he DID call strike 3...but he DID NOT call him out. Your right that the ump couldnt see weather the ball hit the ground...so all in all it is the umps fault...but still the batter made the right desion of running.