Predict the Apology

[CuseCubFan69]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

[TheDude]

Then my question is what does he do to tell the difference between strike 3 and you're out? He put his hand out to say it was not a foul ball but what would he do to say it's a strike but not an out?

I answered this for you over ten pages ago.

 

Eddings established two precedents for his calls:

-Swinging strike three: signal no contact with right arm raise, signal strike three with fist pump.

 

-Ball-in-the-dirt swinging strike three; signal no contact with right arm raise, wait until catcher tags runner or throws to first to issue strike three fist pump.

 

The entire issue with the call lies with the fact Eddings signaled example 1 to resolve the controversial play in question, which should have been signaled with example 2.

 

[edit - it only should have been signaled with example 2 if you believe the ball bounced. Most fans I have read statements from or talked to believe it was a case of example 1 correctly signaled as example 1, until AJP decided to test the scenario by running.]

[CuseCubFan69]

Then my question is what does he do to tell the difference between strike 3 and you're out? He put his hand out to say it was not a foul ball but what would he do to say it's a strike but not an out?

I answered this for you over ten pages ago.

 

Eddings established two precedents for his calls:

-Swinging strike three: signal no contact with right arm raise, signal strike three with fist pump.

 

-Ball-in-the-dirt swinging strike three; signal no contact with right arm raise, wait until catcher tags runner or throws to first to issue strike three fist pump.

 

The entire issue with the call lies with the fact Eddings signaled example 1 to resolve the controversial play in question, which should have been signaled with example 2.

 

What about a called 3 strike dropped by a catcher?

[TheDude]

What about a called 3 strike dropped by a catcher?

Same as scenario 2.

 

Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines.

[frostwyrm]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

[CuseCubFan69]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

 

It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.

[Radar3454]

I got about halfway thru this thread and just wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

I did not see any dirt indicating the ball hit the ground but the ball did seem to bounce into the glove. I think the Ump should have indicated right away that there was no catch but Paul should have just tagged him anyway on a ball that close.

[CuseCubFan69]

What about a called 3 strike dropped by a catcher?

Same as scenario 2.

 

Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines.

 

Did a catcher drop a 3rd strike in the game? I understand if a ball is in the dirt but I didn't realize that a catcher dropped a 3rd strike in the game.

[frostwyrm]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

 

It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.

 

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

[CuseCubFan69]

I got about halfway thru this thread and just wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

I did not see any dirt indicating the ball hit the ground but the ball did seem to bounce into the glove. I think the Ump should have indicated right away that there was no catch but Paul should have just tagged him anyway on a ball that close.

 

I agree. Why take the chance?

 

It reminds me of when that toad Mo Vaughn played first for the Mets. The pitcher made an easy throw over to check the runner at first. Mo caught the ball and just tossed it back to the pitcher. If he actually looked at the runner he would have seen that that he slipped and could have easily been tagged out.

[TheDude]

What about a called 3 strike dropped by a catcher?

Same as scenario 2.

 

Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines.

 

Did a catcher drop a 3rd strike in the game? I understand if a ball is in the dirt but I didn't realize that a catcher dropped a 3rd strike in the game.

Sorry if I confused you. My note was actually in reference to the previous post that detailed Eddings call style.

 

My assertion that a droped ball is treated the same as a ball-in-the-dirt comes from MLB rules. They're treated the same.

[CuseCubFan69]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

 

It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.

 

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

 

True. And...it's up to the other players to be aware to help the catcher with this.

[TheDude]

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

I'm not so sure. Sports, pretty much at all levels, shy from requiring verbal calls because of numerous factors, including dialects, crowd noise, equipment, etc.

 

The body gestures are supposed to have far fewer external factors.

[CuseCubFan69]

What about a called 3 strike dropped by a catcher?

Same as scenario 2.

 

Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines.

 

Did a catcher drop a 3rd strike in the game? I understand if a ball is in the dirt but I didn't realize that a catcher dropped a 3rd strike in the game.

Sorry if I confused you. My note was actually in reference to the previous post that detailed Eddings call style.

 

My assertion that a droped ball is treated the same as a ball-in-the-dirt comes from MLB rules. They're treated the same.

 

I would assume you're right and that the ump also yells strike 3. It's just that it's an automatic reaction to use the punch out and thus the vocal part really comes into play.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

 

It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.

 

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

 

True. And...it's up to the other players to be aware to help the catcher with this.

 

Given that all the players were running off the field, and indicated Eddings' fist pump when AJP started running, all the players were aware of what was going on.

[Andy]

I'd like to throw in that I agree with Raisin's point from six or seven pages ago that Classless One just ran to see if he could get away with it. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed that he had given up on the play, then decided to see if he could get away with running to first to take advantage of Eddings's indecision. The man could have been a professional criminal if he had not made it in baseball with that attitude,

[CuseCubFan69]

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

I'm not so sure. Sports, pretty much at all levels, shy from requiring verbal calls because of numerous factors, including dialects, crowd noise, equipment, etc.

 

The body gestures are supposed to have far fewer external factors.

 

Give him a whistle then. :D

[CuseCubFan69]

I'd like to throw in that I agree with Raisin's point from six or seven pages ago that Classless One just ran to see if he could get away with it. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed that he had given up on the play, then decided to see if he could get away with running to first to take advantage of Eddings's indecision. The man could have been a professional criminal if he had not made it in baseball with that attitude,

 

I'll take a player that can take advantage of a situation like that. It's the umps job to be in charge and make the right call.

[CuseCubFan69]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

 

It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.

 

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

 

True. And...it's up to the other players to be aware to help the catcher with this.

 

Given that all the players were running off the field, and indicated Eddings' fist pump when AJP started running, all the players were aware of what was going on.

 

I saw Erstad standing at first when AJP got there.

[frostwyrm]

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

I'm not so sure. Sports, pretty much at all levels, shy from requiring verbal calls because of numerous factors, including dialects, crowd noise, equipment, etc.

 

The body gestures are supposed to have far fewer external factors.

 

Give him a whistle then. :D

 

Nah, put a rear view mirror in the catcher's helmet.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I can see the rules being changed as a result of this, particularly if the Sox win the series.

 

Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?

 

If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened.

 

It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.

 

The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs.

 

True. And...it's up to the other players to be aware to help the catcher with this.

 

Given that all the players were running off the field, and indicated Eddings' fist pump when AJP started running, all the players were aware of what was going on.

 

I saw Erstad standing at first when AJP got there.

 

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-10/19942320.jpg

 

Look at the video, the second AJP starts running, Erstad, Kennedy and Escobar are shown in the wider view and all three make gestures similar to Eddings' fist pump or point to Eddings.

[CuseCubFan69]

I saw Erstad standing at first when AJP got there.

 

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-10/19942320.jpg

 

Look at the video, the second AJP starts running, Erstad, Kennedy and Escobar are shown in the wider view and all three make gestures similar to Eddings' fist pump or point to Eddings.

 

I teach my players to go after the ball and not yell at an ump. Once AJP is on first then we'll deal with the ump.

 

I hope this gets some rules straighted out and doesn't make then more complicated.

[thedaymen]

This whole thing is completely stupid. The ump called him out, then changed his mind after something else happened. Its not like he called him out then immediately called him safe, he called him out then once the batter reached first he was called safe. The umpire calling him out directly lead to the Angels not throwing the ball to first, either the catcher or pitcher.

 

Lets put it another way, change sports to make it clear. It would be the same thing if in football a runner is stripped of the ball while being tacked, the ref comes in and signals down by contact. As the offense goes back to huddle, a corner back comes in, scoops up the ball, and runs the other way down the field for a TD. There is no signal from the referees between "down by contact" and "TD."

 

Or basketball, a defensive player is called for a foul. The offensive player tosses the ball to the ref who moves out of the way and calls the ball out of bounds and gives it to the defense.

 

Its not whether it was as strike or not that has people upset; nobody cares whether the ball hit the ground, and attempts to frame the debate that way are distractions.

 

The point is the ump made a call that if he had called another way, the Angels still would have gotten the out. The play was only reversed AFTER the oppurtunity to get that out vannished.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I saw Erstad standing at first when AJP got there.

 

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2005-10/19942320.jpg

 

Look at the video, the second AJP starts running, Erstad, Kennedy and Escobar are shown in the wider view and all three make gestures similar to Eddings' fist pump or point to Eddings.

 

I teach my players to go after the ball and not yell at an ump. Once AJP is on first then we'll deal with the ump.

 

I hope this gets some rules straighted out and doesn't make then more complicated.

 

But the ump ruled the player out!! Right as AJP starts running! If he doesn't do that, Escobar fields the rolled ball and throws it to Erstad. The players are were momentarily paralyzed by Eddings' idiocy and then point out his idiocy.

[Chris]

"he rang him up with his fist and said, 'You're out.' " - Mike Scioscia

 

That drastically changes things

 

If Scioscia actually heard that being yelled by the home plate ump then the umps have a problem.

 

Read lips?