adamb0719

This was printed earlier in this thread. In addition, BBTN did a video recap of every incident like the one in the bottom of the 9th. He clearly did the same movement for every swinging strike that was not dropped. In regards to rules, there is nothing I can find that says that an umpire has to say a ruling. In regards to the delayed call, here's what MLB tells the umpires under rule 9.05: 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? By the way, this will be a great lesson for my kids! Do you coach a youth team?

He pulls his arm in and clinches his fist, which is what I always thought was the signal for out. I don't think you can see his lips to be able to tell if he yelled "you're out" unfortunately. I know for a fact that HS umps pump their fist for the 3rd strike but do not yell you're out until the play has been made. It's a habit when a strike is called. But this ump does not, as every other at bat showed. The fist pump means out. If it meant strike three, but your not out then why on dropped balls did he not pump his fist until the play was finished. But did he delay like that? Something was up with the delay. Regardless of the delay he made the signal. Why make it if the play is not done?

Regardless of whether or not he saw the signal he was called out by the umpire. If the Angels actually heard "You're out" then they have a 100% legit beef. If they assumed they heard it then we have a problem. I'm curious on what Paul heard. Doesn't the fact the there was the fist pump, signaling him out, make the beef legit? I said 100%. The Angels have a very valid arguement I have never denied that. Also, for anyone that taped the game I think it would matter what the ump did the whole game to determine his pattern for K's. What he did the whole game is what makes it indisputable that he called him out

He pulls his arm in and clinches his fist, which is what I always thought was the signal for out. I don't think you can see his lips to be able to tell if he yelled "you're out" unfortunately. I know for a fact that HS umps pump their fist for the 3rd strike but do not yell you're out until the play has been made. It's a habit when a strike is called. But this ump does not, as every other at bat showed. The fist pump means out. If it meant strike three, but your not out then why on dropped balls did he not pump his fist until the play was finished.

Regardless of whether or not he saw the signal he was called out by the umpire. If the Angels actually heard "You're out" then they have a 100% legit beef. If they assumed they heard it then we have a problem. I'm curious on what Paul heard. Doesn't the fact the there was the fist pump, signaling him out, make the beef legit?

It would have saved the umps a lot of grief. Likewise an ump standing by his call could have saved the Angels a lot of grief.

After watching the replay I'm not so sure of that. It's certainly not a situation where he threw the ball to the mound, took 5 steps and then the umpire clutched his fist for the out. It doesn't have to be that. The ump has to call a batter out first then roll the ball and I thought that Paul did it too soon. Also, what was verbally said during the play...does anyone know? What wasn't said was that the ball hit the ground, which usually is. That was admitted in the post game interview.

If Eddings watched Paul then why din't he call AJ out because it was obvious that Paul thought he caught the ball. He did call him out. That is the problem. At this point the ball being caught or hitting the ground is irrelevant. He was called out and allowed to stay on base. That is the only problem right now.

The right hand going up indicates there was no contact between the bat and the ball. In other words, it's not a foul. A foul ball had nothing to do with it though and since you can run on a ball in the dirt after a 3rd strike that to me is where the probelm is. Again, why did Paul roll the ball before AJ was called out? Because he knew it was an out. He assumed wrong then didn't he? No, he didn't assume wrong. It was an out. The umpire called the out. What more do you want? If he called him out why was AJ safe at first? That is the whole problem. Why did he call him out and let him stay at first? That is what is so confusing, and makes the call ridiculous. There is no way to argue that he was not called out. Every replay shows he used the same motions as every other third strike called out. When the balls were in the ground, he did not pump his fist until a tag or throw to first. In this situation he did what he does for a third strike out. To me the problem lies in the fact that Eddings said he was watching Paul to see what he did, and he did not say the ball was dropped. Why does it matter what Paul or A.J. did? The call was out and Eddings did not take control of the situation. He just let A.J. run after calling him out.

ELI. I have stuck with Culpepper all year, and I finally gave up. I am giving Collins the nod.

Reynolds did say that got screwed. He said he would have done the same thing Paul did, and there is reason why all the Angels thought he was out.

Jones is questionable this week. Has not practiced yet. I have him on both my teams and think I am going to sit him. Of course if he gets the OK for full duty, he is back in. This is per ESPN Insider

This makes no sense to me. He didn't call no catch, so what in the hell do you expect Paul to do. And he is the ump, why is he letting the players dictate what happens?

Couldn't a change of direction happened just from bouncing inside the glove? Also I really don't get it, isn't that all irrelevant since he was signaled out. I thought that superseded anything else, the fact that he was called out.

About the only thing I'll say to that is that Paul should have tagged him to be sure. Other than that, the whole play was bull. True, he should have tagged him. One thing I read on their board was that Paul tossed the ball to the mound before the out call was made. Did anyone notice that? Either way, I personally did not see an angle that showed the ball hit the ground. And shouldn't that be irrelevant since he was called out? I guess this confuses me a bit. I still just don't understand why he signaled him out, then just let him take first. I think the ump was as confused as the Angels were. Not according to the Angels or Dodgers radio stations. They said Paul saw Eddings do the fist thing to acknowledge an out and then he rolled the ball to the mound. Gotta love the two sides that every story has.

About the only thing I'll say to that is that Paul should have tagged him to be sure. Other than that, the whole play was bull. True, he should have tagged him. One thing I read on their board was that Paul tossed the ball to the mound before the out call was made. Did anyone notice that? Either way, I personally did not see an angle that showed the ball hit the ground. And shouldn't that be irrelevant since he was called out? I guess this confuses me a bit. I still just don't understand why he signaled him out, then just let him take first. I think the ump was as confused as the Angels were.

Has anyone checked the Sox boards. Some pretty classy stuff being said. It appears that most of their fans feel the called out is irrelevant. It was indisputable that the ball hit the ground. The Sox deserved it because they hustled on the play, and the Angels were lazy.

I missed the game, but just saw the highlights on Sportscenter. That was terrible, he obviously called him out. Did I hear Eddings say he did not call the ball dropped? Then why did he allow him to advance to first? This is a very unique situation to say the least.

Here is a great article on the ND-USC game if anyone is interested http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005/Columnists/MZ/Week7/PP_USC_ND.htm

I believe Indy's D is only allowing 5.8 points a game. You can't argue with that.

JoePa is not a problem with that school, but he is still a pompus a$$. Come on, as a ND fan how can you respect that man? He degrades ND any chance he gets, when his players get arrested for drunk driving he says it is not that big of a deal, and they didn't do anything that was really wrong, he gets in fistfights with ND alum in limo's after bashing the school, the whole Dan O'Conner thing (I believe that was his name) and numerous other things that are just wrong for a coach to do IMO. He is a good coach there is no denying that, but as far as a person I have no respect for him. Wow, that is about the opposite of everything I've ever heard said about Joe Paterno. There are actually quite a few articles saying how he lets his players slide with a lot of infractions, and he blames the fact that everyone is out to get football players. In his mind a football player can break no laws. Some of the stuff is pretty old though. I do think he is a good coach and I like Penn State, I just disagree with his thoughts/attitude on certain subjects. If I can find any of the articles I will post them for you. Actually, he doesn't let them slide all that much. Connor was suspended 3 games for being 1 of 3 people part of making harassing phone calls... I'm not sure what you think Paterno did wrong in this situation, but being suspended a quarter of the season for that is a real punishment, not just a slap on the wrist. As for drunk driving, he took a lot of heat for that comment and did apologize for it. I think that when he said what he said, it was in an attempt to protect Tony Johnson from the media - mostly because Tony's dad Larry is a defensive coach at PSU and a friend of Joe's. About 2-3 years back, he suspended starting safety Yaacov Yisrael for half a season when he was arrested for drunk driving a few days before a game... so I really don't think he blows off drunk driving as a minor offense. This isn't FSU or Tom Osbourne's Nebraska, where guys commit an assault and then go out and play on Saturday. He will stick up for his players when he doesn't believe they were in the wrong. In 2000, starting QB Rashard Casey was arrested for attacking an off-duty police officer and putting him in the hospital. Casey denied the charges and Paterno believed him, and eventually he wasn't even indicted by a grand jury. So even though a lot of people said he only stuck with Casey because he didn't have another viable option at QB, that really wasn't the reason at all. I can't comment on the Notre Dame stories... but I have definitely never heard of him attacking a Notre Dame alum in a limo. The only time I've ever heard him comment on Notre Dame was last year after they fired Willingham. He didn't like it because they were running a clean program, making guys get an education and go to class, and recruiting players with good characters. That's not the same as just going out of his way to trash the Fighting Irish. These are from PSU media guides. I remember this happening. Paterno said he was rethinking the suspension and then he gets hurt, so the suspension stood. I really can't think of names of hand, and this may be incorrect, but some players who were recently suspended were only suspended for the summer, but could come back when the season started? I believe it was sexual assualt for one and getting in a fight for the others, could be way wrong though. Also there is no denying that PSU players have been getting arrested left and right these last few years. Not all Paterno's fault, but it does say something about the kids he is recruiting nowadays. As far as his comments about drunk driving I don't think that saying he didn't hurt anybody, its not a big deal, and he supposes he may have to suspend him for a game so the team doesn't think it is OK to have a few drinks during the week is really protecting him from the media. However he did get a lot of heat from his comments and did apologize, so maybe he did realize it was wrong to say that drunk driving is not a big deal. As far as Conners goes, I thought it was only a game suspension, so I was wrong on that one. Sorry Now with regards to ND, Paterno has been quoted as saying ND has gone from a school of a banking institution, and in the 70's he was badmouthing ND in a lime when an alum was in the car, who spoke up and Paterno attacked him. I don't know all the details, and I was not alive at the time, however I hear it all the time from my family (some from South Bend, some from Pennsylvania-it always comes up at some point) Also I did not like when Paterno said the ND should not have fired Ty, just like I did not like it when everyone else said it. The man needed to go. He has also said many times that he has no respect for ND or any of their tradition. I don't think Paterno is dirty, or that he runs a dirty program. I would never compare him to Tressel or Bowden. However I do think that he is not this class act that everyone makes him out to be. I believe he is a great coach, and PSU is a great school. I just don't agree with a lot of what he says and does.

Pete Carroll was opposed to instant replay coming to the Pac 10 too. Reggie Bush was cleared to play on Saturday but will continue to go light in practice this week. UCLA DT Brigham Harwell was also cleared to play for UCLA in Pullman, despite his sprained ankle. Weather will be a factor in the UCLA game with temps in the 40s and rain (which is a big deal since most of our guys are Californians - 2 years ago, half the team saw snow for the first time in their lives when it snowed during the UCLA-WSU game). I just think it's interesting that he did not decline it for any other game this year. Like I said, I don't think it is a big deal, just some somewhat intriguing.

The X and O quote was Also this may explain his attitude a bit- As far as your second question, here is what he said when first hired- He also made comments saying that if he wanted to coach in the NFL he would have taken the Dolphins job. He also said he will coach in South Bend until his son, who he wants to attend ND, is finished with school and then he will retire. As of right now I have no reason to think Weis was not telling the truth when he said that. However peoples minds can change. I just hope Weis' doesn't

I'm not too big on conspiracy theories but... Pete Carroll has declined to use the instant replay in South Bend this weekend. It is the only game, not only by USC, but in all of D1 football where the replay has been denied this season. Not really a big deal however it is interesting that the refs who are doing the game are from the PAC-10, and notorious for their bad calls.

I never thought I'd say this ever...but...Go Irish :-\ I hate ND more than USC, but I'm so tired of hearing about them, and I want a new Champion this year...so...Go Irish... I'll be at the game too. Do you know where Gameday is setting up? The last time they were there it was infront of the Library (touchdown Jesus). You going up for the Pep Rally on Friday night? Montana is the speaker, and it will be aired on ESPNEWS. Charlie has been wearing a USC OWNS ND hat all week, and is expected to wear it at the pep rally as well. I really can't wait for this weekend. I also like ND being 13 point dogs. I really don't know what to think of Charlie. At times he seems like a really good guy, a very smart coach and has traits of that Belichick mold. But then at times he just seems like a totally arrogant jerk who goes against that mold. I kind of feel the same way. I love the guy as a coach, and is really is a wonderful person from everything I hear. However at times he does seem arrogant. There have been some quotes he has made where I had to do a double take to make sure I heard/read it correctly. I think he is very, very confident, and at times it can come across as arrogance.