dropped 3rd strike call in Angels vs. Sox

[BuckeyeNation27]

We never got a great camera angel on that call the other night with the Yankees. The rule says If the batter runs to the inside or outside of the 3 foot running lane and in doing so hinders the first baseman in making attempt to field a thrown ball, then the runner shall be called out. The lines are part of the lane. So if you have one foot in the lane, and the other on the line, you are good. It looked VERY close on replays, but you never quite got the angle you want from the replay (the angle you want is what the home plate umpire had) It really isn't that tough of a call for the home plate umpire as long as he is looking up the line and ready for it. I think they probably got the call right...but it was close. If any part of his foot was to the inside of that line, then it was likely right to call him out.

I thought this was a terrible call untill I saw the replay they showed one time where he was well inside the basepath on the way down to first. he was on the grass of the infield. Fox refused to show it again, but that was a good call.

Couldn't agree more.

Also Jonathan, how can the ump be sure the catcher caught the ball off of the ground when he was standing behind the catcher, arguably, the worst spot on the diamond to make that call?

Whatever happend to "Strike 3 you're out!"

did you not just read what our resident baseball umpire put about the 'strike 3' mechanic?

 

[Buckin' A]

If you watch the ball closely, it is heading for the ground. But when it finally hit the catchers mit, it was about 3 inches from the ground...which tells me it bounced off of the ground. But it was hard to see.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

If you watch the ball closely, it is heading for the ground. But when it finally hit the catchers mit, it was about 3 inches from the ground...which tells me it bounced off of the ground. But it was hard to see.

There's a definite "change of direction" when the ball meets the glove. I don't know if this could be caused by the catchers mit closing on the ball or not. The ball does rattle around in there, but I don't know if it ever touches the ground after the mit was closed on it.

so really theres 2 chances the ball hit the ground: initially bouncing into the mit from the ground, or being trapped on the ground. or both.

 

[exhawg]

you are right, the minor league team in cleveland (i think they are called the Indians?) were done playing on Oct. 2

Or it could be because the Sox and Yankees lost so no one cares anymore.

I would watch what I say about the Indians if I were you. They fell short this year, but they are only getting better. Do you really think the White Sox will be able to have a hot stretch next year like they had the first half of the season this year? They better make the most of the playoffs this year because they will have a harder time of it next year.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Or it could be because the Sox and Yankees lost so no one cares anymore.

I would watch what I say about the Indians if I were you. They fell short this year, but they are only getting better. Do you really think the White Sox will be able to have a hot stretch next year like they had the first half of the season this year? They better make the most of the playoffs this year because they will have a harder time of it next year.

I thought this year was the year to watch out for the Indians.

 

[exhawg]

I thought this year was the year to watch out for the Indians.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

I switched the game on during the previous at bat, so I got to see this circus play as well. I gotta say, I think it was a hilareous play and a heads up one by the batter. I was laughing out loud when he was running down the base path after the catcher rolled the ball towards the mound.

Great insight, JonathanXC - glad to see that you think it was a good call. It sure made for an entertaining ending. :)

 

[Sober]

I thought this year was the year to watch out for the Indians.

And the caveliers too

 

[BB73]

JXC, excellent clarifications on the rules and procedures of the umpires.

I'm a White Sox fan that has seen the replay a ton. I think the Sox got a huge break; I don't think the ball ever hit the ground. And although the home plate ump waited too long to ask for help, there's no way that somebody 100 feet away can see that play clearly. The ball was within 2 inches of the ground, and the glove itself causes some dirt to fly up.

But it was a smart play by Pierzynski, and a careless one by Josh Paul, the Angels catcher.

Umpire Eddings did say after the game that the fist pump was his mechanic for a strike, and that was his consistent signal throughout the game, whether it was strike 1, 2, or 3.

There was a similar play earlier in the game with Molina batting and Pierzynski catching. It was a swinging third strike with the ball in the dirt. Eddings first points to the right, signaling that a swing was made with no contact. Pierzynski is already tagging Molina, who had hardly moved. Eddings then does the fist pump, and only does it once. It is indicating both strike 3 and an out at this point, because the tag has already been made. He would have made the same signal without the tag, since it would have been his next signal after his pointing to the right, to indicate strike 3. Without a separate signal for strike 3 and the out, you can understand why players can get confused.

Another factor was that catcher Josh Paul said that Eddings was saying 'no catch' whenever the ball was in the dirt, and that nothing was said on the play in question. I haven't heard Eddings' comment about that contention, but on a close play it was a costly assumption by Paul to think he didn't need to make a tag.

JXC, when the ump is making the 3rd strike call, are there any guidelines for what he's saying? Is he only supposed to say 'strike' if he thinks the ball is in the dirt, as opposed to saying or adding 'Yer out' if he knows the catch was clean? And what about the 'no catch' thing, is that just a optional thing that some umps use to help the catcher know what the ump has seen?

I realize that the Angels have no complaint about the fist pump signal, but I'm wondering about what Josh Paul heard, or should have heard, from Eddings before he assumed the batter was ruled out.

 

[JXC]

So if he stays outside the line and takes out the first baseman is that ok. I feel it is the same when running and the ball is hit to the second baseman and you have to avoid him so you don't run into him.

If he is in the running lane, and takes out the first baseman fielding the throw, he is okay. It is also okay to hit the second baseman, IF HE IS FIELDING A THROW...but not if he is fielding a batted ball. That is probably what you are thinking of. You ALWAYS must avoid a fielder that is fielding a BATTED BALL...but if it is a THROWN BALL then you aren't called out until you intentionally interfear (like swiping at the guy ala A-ROD last year)...the only exception to being able to be called out by interfearing with a thrown ball, but not doing so on purpose, is when you are running to first outside of that running lane. If this is confusing, ask more questions...cuz it can be quite confusing.

 

[JXC]

Couldn't agree more.

Also Jonathan, how can the ump be sure the catcher caught the ball off of the ground when he was standing behind the catcher, arguably, the worst spot on the diamond to make that call?

Whatever happend to "Strike 3 you're out!"

Umpires never say "Strike 3 you're out". That's just in movies. If the guy swings at strike 3, then the umpire says nothing. If it is a called third strike, then the umpire says "STRIKE THREE"...but never calls him out...to avoid confusion if the ball is dropped. Doug Eddings never called the batter out. The mechanic he used was his swinging strike mechanic...and that fist pump is the "strike" mechanic they teach at umpire school. Some umpires point, some use the fist pump. The players aren't paying attention to the umpire's mechanics. I promise you the Angels weren't confused by the umpire's mechanics.



I think all the other questions that you had were similar. The umpire didn't screw up his mechanics, even though ESPiN says he did. This is a really really close call. I mean after the replay, people still aren't sure. I saw a replay that showed it touching the ground. I've only seen this replay once.

24 hours after...this is my main feeling on this whole thing:

The media is blowing it way out of proportion. Nobody in the media knows the rules, and knows what really happened. The umpire didn't screw up...he made a judgment call, and the way he did it was correct. Even after watching replays, we still don't know whether his judgment was right or not (IT WAS THAT CLOSE) I saw a replay showing it hit the ground...others don't think it hit the ground. I think even if there was instant replay, it couldn't be changed. The umpire did get together...but it was so close, that it couldn't be changed. Slowing this thing down to 1 frame a second still leaves doubt.

The media isn't addressing the real reason things went wrong. The catcher!!! I've umpired a lot of baseball. The catcher ALWAYS tags the batter when it's close like this. The catcher put the umpire in a bad position. The batter took advantage of it. The umpire stuck with what he felt was the right call. Nobody's actions were influenced by what the umpire did...they did what they did on their own.

Also...this didn't score the run. It only put the guy on first. The angels suck for letting the guy steal second...AND THEN throwing a gopher ball on what I think was an 0-2 pitch. Who is to say that even if the game went into extra innings, that the Sox still wouldn't have won.

It's a lot easier to blame the umpire then to blame a player. Just like it was a lot easier to blame Bartman than it was to blame the Cubs and their pitching and errors. The angels lost this game...nobody else.

 

[bucknut11]

There was a time earlier in the game where a similar situation arose. The ump put his arm out to the side, presumably to signal a swinging strike, but he didn't pumphis fist until after a delay when the batter was finally tagged out. Pretty clear how the ump was doing his motions. In the 9th, he put his arm out to the side and almost immediately pumped his fist. Both motions. I'm no expert, but that looks an awful lot like he called the batter out.

 

[Buckeye Nut]

There was a time earlier in the game where a similar situation arose. The ump put his arm out to the side, presumably to signal a swinging strike, but he didn't pumphis fist until after a delay when the batter was finally tagged out. Pretty clear how the ump was doing his motions. In the 9th, he put his arm out to the side and almost immediately pumped his fist. Both motions. I'm no expert, but that looks an awful lot like he called the batter out.

I saw when they showed that and I couldn't agree more. Whether or not Paul caught it, it still appeared that he called Pierzynski out when you look at that comparison to an earlier call. I'm just glad I'm not an Angles fan because I'd be pissed. They got hosed on that call.

 

[Sloopy45]

Buckeye Nut: "I saw when they showed that and I couldn't agree more. Whether or not Paul caught it, it still appeared that he called Pierzynski out when you look at that comparison to an earlier call. I'm just glad I'm not an Angles fan because I'd be pissed. They got hosed on that call."

No matter what signal is given, if the umpire is remaining at his position staring at the field after the play is supposedly over, then it means that the play aint over.

Would it have killed Paul to just tag Pierzynski out??

 

[Sober]

the explanations after the game by the umps shows they had no clue what was going on during the play.