Ankiel might be broken

[kujay]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

He caught it with two hands, took a few steps, and then the ball clearly came out when his glove hit the wall. Who needs a telescopic camera lens? It seems pretty clear.

 

He had already transferred the ball from his glove to his throwing hand. The ball was in his left hand when he hit the wall. There's no doubt about it.

 

I have my doubts. He puts his hand in the glove, but after watching it repeatedly I don't see the ball in his bare hand on impact. It's unclear if it falls out of his glove or if it falls out of his hand.

 

I can see it in his hand clearly as he hits the wall. Is there anyone here that can take the clip and slow it down a bit?

 

Edited to add: If you look at his left hand when he falls to the ground, the ball is in it. The ball pops out of his hand when his hand hits the ground.

 

Either way, it was a catch. If he transferred it to his hand, that's a catch. If he didn't, he took a few steps with control of the ball, so it's a catch.

 

And by all reports, he's okay. So I think it's okay for us to discuss whether it was a catch or not.

[radarluv1]

pretty sure manuel had a half-hearted discussion with the umps. he had the decency to wait until the meatwagon left the field, which is commendable.

[Guest]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

[Bote McBoteface]

He took three steps and had full control of the ball, it should certainly be an out. Just because he ran head first into a wall and that caused him to drop it shouldn't mean he doesn't get credit for catching it.

[jersey cubs fan]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

[Cynosure]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

Because it shouldn't have been, injury or not.

[Mike Aller]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

Because it shouldn't have been, injury or not.

Why shouldn't it have been? There might be some technical rule that I don't know, but when I look at that, my (fairly uneducated) opinion says it's an obvious catch.

[fromthestretch]

Either way, it was a catch. If he transferred it to his hand, that's a catch. If he didn't, he took a few steps with control of the ball, so it's a catch.

 

Technically, I would agree with you. However, it's really up to the umpire.

 

It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball.

 

Yes, he took a couple steps, but in real time, he's hitting that wall in a second or less after making the catch. If the umpire interprets that as "immediately following his contact with the ball", they might not rule it a catch. Most probably would give it to him, but some might not. The big factor here is that he had the presence of mind to transfer it to his throwing hand.

 

IIRC, there was a play several years ago when Dave Martinez was still with the Cubs, where he made a great catch, slammed into the wall, fell down, and didn't get up. The ball actually stayed in his glove as he was motionless on the ground. I believe Dawson removed the ball from Martinez' glove and because of that, they ruled it a non-catch.

[fromthestretch]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

Because it shouldn't have been, injury or not.

 

It was clearly a catch. He had transferred it to this throwing hand before he hit the wall.

[Bote McBoteface]

In my mind its clearly a catch, especially with the transfer. Those that don't think it is, rewatch the video and pretend its fukudome and not Ankiel.

[fromthestretch]

In my mind its clearly a catch, especially with the transfer. Those that don't think it is, rewatch the video and pretend its fukudome and not Ankiel.

 

According to the rule book:

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.

 

If you're able to transfer it to your throwing hand, that pretty much establishes secure possession. Hell, a lot of times we'll see an umpire credit a player with secure possession of the ball when they drop it during transfer (this typically happens when a player drops the ball while trying to turn a double play).

[Cynosure]

In my mind its clearly a catch, especially with the transfer. Those that don't think it is, rewatch the video and pretend its fukudome and not Ankiel.

 

According to the rule book:

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.

 

If you're able to transfer it to your throwing hand, that pretty much establishes secure possession. Hell, a lot of times we'll see an umpire credit a player with secure possession of the ball when they drop it during transfer (this typically happens when a player drops the ball while trying to turn a double play).

 

Yea fair points... I need to see a full replay... just glad he's ok.

[Electron Blue]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

Good god, man, how can you manage to argue over the internet while rick ankiel lies in a hospital bed!?! ;)

[rynefan]

Any new updates on him (Tuesday)?

[Guest]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

Who's worked up?

 

I'm basically describing the situation and asking how an umpire and his view can determine that was a catch. The ball was laying on the ground when all was said and done. Ankiel was running away from the umpires, essentially blocking them from being able to see. His outstretched glove was in front of him, also blocking the play from the umpires. The umpires do not have the use of slow motion, replay video equipment to make rulings, and in such a speedy play where most everyone sees a horrific collision between man and wall, that an umpire actually saw the play clearly and was able to determine that was a catch seems pretty amazing to me. I've watched the video several times, and I still don't see a clear catch, and I don't see a clear transfer of the ball to his other hand, and I'm watching a slow motion replay with a telescopic lens.

 

It's not being worked up. It's asking the question of how an umpire calls an out an out when there is a ball laying up against the outfield wall.

 

Last year, Kosuke made a catch that he held onto for much longer than Ankiel did on that play, and it was not ruled a catch. Kosuke probably made 3 full length strides after the catch at full speed before bumping Soriano's leg with his glove hand, which is where the ball came loose. Safe was the rule on the field.

[Guest]

I guess I can see the transfer. However, I don't see how an umpire sees it. Also compounding the visibility issue for the umpire is the white uniform.

[fromthestretch]

I can understand questioning what the ump did/didn't see, considering the speed of the play and the angle the ump most likely had.

[mjohnson71]

Why does the call matter? The Phillies were handily winning 6-1 in the bottom of the 8th.

 

My friend at the game said both teams pretty much packed it in after the scare and long delay.

[cubswin2009]

i cant believe they gave him the catch

wtf that was clearly a catch. Maybe it's just me watching that gif in slow-mo.

[Tracer Bullet]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

You argued about whether it was a catch for several posts. Why are you trying to call out another poster for questioning whether it was a catch?

[jersey cubs fan]

How in the world is that considered a catch? Exactly which umpire was able to determine without the use of a telescopic camera lens that there was a ball transfer or that it was ever in his glove, ignoring the fact that Ankiel, himself, was probably blocking whatever umpire had the best view.

 

How is that your concern after seeing the play?

 

Amazingly enough, I can multitask with the best of them. I can have concern over Ankiel hitting the wall AND have concern for why it is considered an out, all at the same time.

 

I just don't get how you were able to get so worked up about that being called an out.

 

You argued about whether it was a catch for several posts. Why are you trying to call out another poster for questioning whether it was a catch?

 

He got all worked up about it, freaking out about telescopic lenses and stuff. I didn't argue it. I said at first I had doubts, but when I saw the slo-mo replay it was clearly a catch. But he freaked out about the actual call on the field and was all worked up about how the umps could dare make such a call. It seems pretty easy to see how they could make such a call. I don't get how a fan can see that and then question the audacity of the umps for saying he was out.

[kujay]

In my mind its clearly a catch, especially with the transfer. Those that don't think it is, rewatch the video and pretend its fukudome and not Ankiel.

 

According to the rule book:

 

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.

 

If you're able to transfer it to your throwing hand, that pretty much establishes secure possession. Hell, a lot of times we'll see an umpire credit a player with secure possession of the ball when they drop it during transfer (this typically happens when a player drops the ball while trying to turn a double play).

 

Yea fair points... I need to see a full replay... just glad he's ok.

 

You might not actually concede that the umps made the right call, would you? :wink:

[treebird]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/madhops_42/cardinals3.jpg

[manbearcub]

thank you

[Mark Priors Calves]

i miss imb!