Predict the Apology

[adamb0719]

Q: Jerry, what kind of help did Mike figure you could help from right field with on that call anyway?

 

Jerry Crawford: Well, he just said, "Where is the crew chief?" So I was there. He just said, "Hey, he called him out." I said, "Mike, he didn't call him out." I said, "He called it a strike."

 

Even the umps don't agree with what happened.

 

 

 

 

A good article on ESPN about it

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2005/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=2189660

(may be insider)

[CuseCubFan69]

My point is that the Angels are not blameless. Harvey, yeah an old ump, just said that it is considered coaching for the ump to tell the catcher the ball was not caught. It is Pauls job to secure the out and he did not do so. He also said that until you yell your out it isn;'t an out which is a point I made a long time ago. A catcher does not know a batter is out until he is told by the ump.

 

But the point is that the position you are advocating dictates that the catcher should tag the batter on anything boderline, players should always assume the batter isn't out. That's unreasonable.

 

On borderline plays like that you are absolutely wrong, the defensive players can never assume an offensive player is out. Until the ump says they are....says and shows the signal they are safe. You ask any coach....any coach and he'll tell you to take the decision out of the umps hands and make the easy tag. Assuming anything gets you can get you exactly what happened to the Angels. I don't think the extra effort is unreasonable in any way.

From what I have been hearing, the ump has to yell "live ball" if he doesn't think a strike is caught. Paul says he heard nothing, and that is why he did nothing. This is the ump's fault and not Paul's in any way. Paul was not leaving the decision in the ump's hands because the ump had not said "live ball", so Paul rightly thought the decision had already been made.

 

Saying Paul should have tagged him is akin to saying that on a double play grounder, the guy at second should stand on the bag until he heard the umpire call "out" before throwing it over to first.

 

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

[XZero771679666304]

My point is that the Angels are not blameless. Harvey, yeah an old ump, just said that it is considered coaching for the ump to tell the catcher the ball was not caught. It is Pauls job to secure the out and he did not do so. He also said that until you yell your out it isn;'t an out which is a point I made a long time ago. A catcher does not know a batter is out until he is told by the ump.

 

But the point is that the position you are advocating dictates that the catcher should tag the batter on anything boderline, players should always assume the batter isn't out. That's unreasonable.

 

On borderline plays like that you are absolutely wrong, the defensive players can never assume an offensive player is out. Until the ump says they are....says and shows the signal they are safe. You ask any coach....any coach and he'll tell you to take the decision out of the umps hands and make the easy tag. Assuming anything gets you can get you exactly what happened to the Angels. I don't think the extra effort is unreasonable in any way.

From what I have been hearing, the ump has to yell "live ball" if he doesn't think a strike is caught. Paul says he heard nothing, and that is why he did nothing. This is the ump's fault and not Paul's in any way. Paul was not leaving the decision in the ump's hands because the ump had not said "live ball", so Paul rightly thought the decision had already been made.

 

Saying Paul should have tagged him is akin to saying that on a double play grounder, the guy at second should stand on the bag until he heard the umpire call "out" before throwing it over to first.

 

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

 

What does he have to do? Signal an out? Oh wait, he did that.

[CuseCubFan69]

If a batter hits a foul ball an umpire must yell foul ball. But, when it's fair he says nothing. This is along the same lines of what happened and agin it's considered coaching for an ump to yell fair ball. It's up to the player to make the right decision and not assume anything.

[Tim]

So in a stadium full of screaming fans, it is the verbal call that is significant? Does this seem backwards to anyone else?

 

BTW - I believe the Angels got hosed. I think Paul caught the ball. I think the umpire signaled the out. I think the ump was terribly inconsistent with his mannerisms and vocalizations in that AB compared with other AB's if he meant to keep it a live play.

 

But I agree with Cuse that you have to take the call out of the umps hands and tag the guy if you're Josh Paul. The Angels got hosed, but Paul could have prevented the whole thing with just reaching out a foot and tagging AJP.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Tim

[XZero771679666304]

If a batter hits a foul ball an umpire must yell foul ball. But, when it's fair he says nothing. This is along the same lines of what happened and agin it's considered coaching for an ump to yell fair ball. It's up to the player to make the right decision and not assume anything.

 

Not even assume a player is out when he is called out? Perhaps the fielders should reamin on the field until the batter is in the dugout to avoid any potential ambiguity.

[CuseCubFan69]

My point is that the Angels are not blameless. Harvey, yeah an old ump, just said that it is considered coaching for the ump to tell the catcher the ball was not caught. It is Pauls job to secure the out and he did not do so. He also said that until you yell your out it isn;'t an out which is a point I made a long time ago. A catcher does not know a batter is out until he is told by the ump.

 

But the point is that the position you are advocating dictates that the catcher should tag the batter on anything boderline, players should always assume the batter isn't out. That's unreasonable.

 

On borderline plays like that you are absolutely wrong, the defensive players can never assume an offensive player is out. Until the ump says they are....says and shows the signal they are safe. You ask any coach....any coach and he'll tell you to take the decision out of the umps hands and make the easy tag. Assuming anything gets you can get you exactly what happened to the Angels. I don't think the extra effort is unreasonable in any way.

From what I have been hearing, the ump has to yell "live ball" if he doesn't think a strike is caught. Paul says he heard nothing, and that is why he did nothing. This is the ump's fault and not Paul's in any way. Paul was not leaving the decision in the ump's hands because the ump had not said "live ball", so Paul rightly thought the decision had already been made.

 

Saying Paul should have tagged him is akin to saying that on a double play grounder, the guy at second should stand on the bag until he heard the umpire call "out" before throwing it over to first.

 

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

 

What does he have to do? Signal an out? Oh wait, he did that.

 

Then tell me how a catcher knows he made a signal? He has to yell he's out too.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

 

What does he have to do? Signal an out? Oh wait, he did that.

 

Then tell me how a catcher knows he made a signal? He has to yell he's out too.

 

Again, if Eddings didn't make that sign, then Escobar would've gone to the ball and thrown AJP out easily.

[UBlink]

So in a stadium full of screaming fans, it is the verbal call that is significant? Does this seem backwards to anyone else?

 

BTW - I believe the Angels got hosed. I think Paul caught the ball. I think the umpire signaled the out. I think the ump was terribly inconsistent with his mannerisms and vocalizations in that AB compared with other AB's if he meant to keep it a live play.

 

But I agree with Cuse that you have to take the call out of the umps hands and tag the guy if you're Josh Paul. The Angels got hosed, but Paul could have prevented the whole thing with just reaching out a foot and tagging AJP.

 

And the choir responds, "AMEN" :hail: :hail: :hail:

[XZero771679666304]

So in a stadium full of screaming fans, it is the verbal call that is significant? Does this seem backwards to anyone else?

 

BTW - I believe the Angels got hosed. I think Paul caught the ball. I think the umpire signaled the out. I think the ump was terribly inconsistent with his mannerisms and vocalizations in that AB compared with other AB's if he meant to keep it a live play.

 

But I agree with Cuse that you have to take the call out of the umps hands and tag the guy if you're Josh Paul. The Angels got hosed, but Paul could have prevented the whole thing with just reaching out a foot and tagging AJP.

 

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

[Tim]

So in a stadium full of screaming fans, it is the verbal call that is significant? Does this seem backwards to anyone else?

 

BTW - I believe the Angels got hosed. I think Paul caught the ball. I think the umpire signaled the out. I think the ump was terribly inconsistent with his mannerisms and vocalizations in that AB compared with other AB's if he meant to keep it a live play.

 

But I agree with Cuse that you have to take the call out of the umps hands and tag the guy if you're Josh Paul. The Angels got hosed, but Paul could have prevented the whole thing with just reaching out a foot and tagging AJP.

 

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

Well, if it is a close call, I don't think it hurts to be a bit theatrical about the whole thing. Why do coaches always try to reinforce to players that you should hold a tag instead of just swiping? To make sure the umpire sees it and gets the call correct. That's just one small example, but I think it is a perfectly valid point to say that if it is a close call the fielder should make it as obvious as possible to the umpire.

[CuseCubFan69]

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

 

Calls being the key word.

 

Again....the ball was rolled BEFORE the ump put his hand up.

[UK1679666180]

People in MLB taking responsibility for their mistakes?

 

Let me know when that occurs... I've never seen it until it reaches the managers/players and that is seldom, except for a few (see Angels manager).

 

AJ did the right thing, I thought Paul did the right thing as well, the only ones who failed are the ones in blue.

 

I love the firing line with the umps press conference and the sham of them trying to assume baseball fans are only a couple of notches above being able to tie our own shoes and not having to go with velcro out of difficulty purposes.

[Tim]

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

 

Calls being the key word.

 

Again....the ball was rolled BEFORE the ump put his hand up.

I don't think I agree with that last part, Cuse. I haven't seen the play today, but I didn't get that impression watching it over and over again last night. And earlier in this discussion, I recall someone saying that they had tivo'd it and watched frame by frame and it was not rolled before the call (I believe it was a same time kind of thing according to that poster).

[mhuber92211]

wow, 20 pages of controversy about a team other then the Cubs. Is this a record?

[Tim]

wow, 20 pages of controversy about a team other then the Cubs. Is this a record?

Does it count arguing about Choi after he left the Cubs?

[UBlink]

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

 

Calls being the key word.

 

Again....the ball was rolled BEFORE the ump put his hand up.

 

And again, if he hadn't put his hand up there would have been plenty of time for Escobar to throw the runner out.

[XZero771679666304]

So in a stadium full of screaming fans, it is the verbal call that is significant? Does this seem backwards to anyone else?

 

BTW - I believe the Angels got hosed. I think Paul caught the ball. I think the umpire signaled the out. I think the ump was terribly inconsistent with his mannerisms and vocalizations in that AB compared with other AB's if he meant to keep it a live play.

 

But I agree with Cuse that you have to take the call out of the umps hands and tag the guy if you're Josh Paul. The Angels got hosed, but Paul could have prevented the whole thing with just reaching out a foot and tagging AJP.

 

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

Well, if it is a close call, I don't think it hurts to be a bit theatrical about the whole thing. Why do coaches always try to reinforce to players that you should hold a tag instead of just swiping? To make sure the umpire sees it and gets the call correct. That's just one small example, but I think it is a perfectly valid point to say that if it is a close call the fielder should make it as obvious as possible to the umpire.

 

True, but I'm looking at principle, not just the individual instance. What if there less than 2 outs are other runners moving, and you need to throw quickly? The precedent of umpires reversing their calls is a real problem, and that is effectively what Eddings did. Whether or not Paul should have tagged A.J. is really superfluous here, IMO. The ump called an out, and then said he didn't when it was too late.

[CuseCubFan69]

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

 

Calls being the key word.

 

Again....the ball was rolled BEFORE the ump put his hand up.

I don't think I agree with that last part, Cuse. I haven't seen the play today, but I didn't get that impression watching it over and over again last night. And earlier in this discussion, I recall someone saying that they had tivo'd it and watched frame by frame and it was not rolled before the call (I believe it was a same time kind of thing according to that poster).

 

Look at it Tim. Paul takes off as soon as he catches the ball. DJaxx has a freeze fram of the ump with his hand out straight and Paul is already heading to the bench. The hand came out a little after the ball being rolled.

[XZero771679666304]

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

 

Calls being the key word.

 

Again....the ball was rolled BEFORE the ump put his hand up.

 

And again, if he hadn't put his hand up there would have been plenty of time for Escobar to throw the runner out.

 

And as Tim pointed out, in a raucous playoff atmosphere stadium, the signal trumps the verbal call, and the signal was clearly out.

[CuseCubFan69]

I see that point, but if you exercise every little opportunity to ensure things like that as a fielder, it will become a circus in the field. Should middle infielders hold the ball on caught baserunners until they are on their way to the dugout, or outfielders wait to throw the ball after a diving catch after an out signal just in case the ump changes his mind? The whole flow of the game would be disturbed. It isn't reasonable.

 

If an ump calls a guy out, that should be good enough.

 

Calls being the key word.

 

Again....the ball was rolled BEFORE the ump put his hand up.

 

And again, if he hadn't put his hand up there would have been plenty of time for Escobar to throw the runner out.

 

And as Tim pointed out, in a raucous playoff atmosphere stadium, the signal trumps the verbal call, and the signal was clearly out.

 

If it was so loud why did the pitcher and manager of the Angels say they heard the ump say the batter was out? It's not just the umps that are contradicting themselves.

[CuseCubFan69]

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

 

What does he have to do? Signal an out? Oh wait, he did that.

 

Then tell me how a catcher knows he made a signal? He has to yell he's out too.

 

Again, if Eddings didn't make that sign, then Escobar would've gone to the ball and thrown AJP out easily.

 

He said it was his third strike call and Escobar assumed wrong.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

 

What does he have to do? Signal an out? Oh wait, he did that.

 

Then tell me how a catcher knows he made a signal? He has to yell he's out too.

 

Again, if Eddings didn't make that sign, then Escobar would've gone to the ball and thrown AJP out easily.

 

He said it was his third strike call and Escobar assumed wrong.

 

You say "assumed", I say "following his motions from the entire game".

[CuseCubFan69]

An umpire does not have to yell "Live Ball". He has to yell you're out. Yelling it's a live ball is considered coaching.

 

What does he have to do? Signal an out? Oh wait, he did that.

 

Then tell me how a catcher knows he made a signal? He has to yell he's out too.

 

Again, if Eddings didn't make that sign, then Escobar would've gone to the ball and thrown AJP out easily.

 

He said it was his third strike call and Escobar assumed wrong.

 

You say "assumed", I say "following his motions from the entire game".

 

No. Escobar followed Pauls example and should have payed closer attention.

[Brian]

Just wondering if this reminded anyone else of Game 5 2003 NLDS when Kenny Lofton CLEARLY made a sliding catch in CF but all the umps said that it bounced in ... sure glad that didn't cost us the game/series.