Official ruling

[bmags]

you know, we did still have to steal a base and knock in a run

[Chisoxfn]

I'm not an expert on protests, but i'm pretty sure nothing can happen as far as an official protest goes. It's similar to a safe/out call, etc. They can't appeal whether the ball hit the ground, they could only appeal something based off Eddings mechanics behind the plate. And i don't even know if that is possible.

Ya, because there is no official way to call outs (I don't think) and he can say my way is to signal once for no contact, 2nd time that it was a strike. Its basically his word and you can't change anything.

 

And the only thing you can protest is that, you can't protest whether it was in the dirt or not. Not 100% on that, but 99.9% on it.

[TheHammer]

The fist pump doesnt mean out. He has to call him out. Fist pump is just a fist pump, its no official end all signal. The ump says thats his strike three motion, the two motions. It seems like he never made the out call.

 

Now the play was called incorrectly, but he never did call AJ out.

[lukeman89]

does anyone know what the umpire said exactly?

 

because i know there is a difference between "strike three" and "strike three, you're out"

 

if he just says "strike three" no matter what hand gestures he makes, hes not out until somebody calls him out

[IlliniKrush]

I don't think there is any set out rule either because you can always change the ruling on a play.  How is it any different than a guy being called out and than the umps discuss it and someone else has a better angle and says the ball was trapped.  Different situation, yes, but I dont' think there is any set this is your out call.  Afterall a lot of umps call different things different.

 

I still say that hit the dirt so whether the ump motioned wrong or not, Paul should have made the tag (if its close you usually do so).

Jas-

 

It's different because you dictate how players react on a call like that. That's one of the immediate calls you have to make so the catcher knows if he needs to throw or not. Let's say there is a runner on 3rd or something...if he throws for s***s when the ump knows he's out but is slow on the call and throws it down the line and a run scores...that's on the ump.

 

If the home plate umpire rules out, he's out. He could ask for help before calling him out, or signal to an umpire he needs help (or more so a base umpire will show a closed fist for yes, it was a catch or open hand for no, it hit dirt. Then the ump can make a call.

[Whitewashed in '05]

AJ said he didn't hear that he was called out so he ran. The umpire stuck out his fist but I think he was calling some strikes like that. If he didn't say he was out then AJ has reason to run and too bad for them that Paul threw the ball to the mound.

[Soxbadger]

The only thing that matters is what the umpires decide at the end.

 

If he called drop third strike you are out, and then turned around to realize that the ball was actually at the backstop, do you think that the game would be over on the technicality that he called him officially out?

 

No, its just like any other play, its not over until all the umpires come out and decide its over.

 

SB

[Chisoxfn]

Jas-

 

It's different because you dictate how players react on a call like that.  That's one of the immediate calls you have to make so the catcher knows if he needs to throw or not. Let's say there is a runner on 3rd or something...if he throws for s***s when the ump knows he's out but is slow on the call and throws it down the line and a run scores...that's on the ump.

 

If the home plate umpire rules out, he's out. He could ask for help before calling him out, or signal to an umpire he needs help (or more so a base umpire will show a closed fist for yes, it was a catch or open hand for no, it hit dirt. Then the ump can make a call.

But lets say a runners on 2nd base and the ball is ruled a trap...he has to stay half way and than run back to 2nd instead of head to 3rd because its originally called out. Doesn't that in fact dictate what a player does, yet it can still be changed.

 

I've seen umps have all kinds of different strike out calls. I also think a lot of umps make that similar call (which is what he claims) where you do the strike 3 call with an out sign.

 

That said, I long said if I were Sciosc, I'd be mad at the umps signaling because I still think that ball hit the ground. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence to tell me it didn't. I also never heard any footage of the ump saying it was caught clean or saying it wasn't caught clean.

 

Sure the ump could have done a better job about being loud, but at the same time, its the catchers job to make the tag and I think the one case you can make from the Sox side is that Paul threw the ball back to the mound before the ump even made his next signal (because AJ had turned around) and than ran back.

[Linnwood]

Paul should have tagged him, simple as that. Good on A.J. for paying attention.

[qwerty]

PROTESTING GAMES. Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire's decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final. Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team's chances of winning the game. Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch is made or a runner is retired. A protest arising on a game ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the League Office.

[IlliniKrush]

The fist pump doesnt mean out.  He has to call him out.  Fist pump is just a fist pump, its no official end all signal.  The ump says thats his strike three motion, the two motions.  It seems like he never made the out call. 

 

Now the play was called incorrectly, but he never did call AJ out.

 

I'll tell you one thing. There's a reason every single Angel, to a man, was pissed.

 

The ump used improper mechanics, and a lack of verbal cues.

[bmags]

I'll tell you one thing. There's a reason every single Angel, to a man, was pissed.

 

The ump used improper mechanics, and a lack of verbal cues.

 

and yet, we won.

[Felix]

I'll tell you one thing. There's a reason every single Angel, to a man, was pissed.

 

The ump used improper mechanics, and a lack of verbal cues.

Even if the ump made a mistake, the Angels lost the game themselves. They let Ozuna take second, so a single would have scored him anyway. They gave Crede a pitch in he could rip. They got screwed, yea, but there were still 2 outs and a runner only on first.

[Whitewashed in '05]

But lets say a runners on 2nd base and the ball is ruled a trap...he has to stay half way and than run back to 2nd instead of head to 3rd because its originally called out.  Doesn't that in fact dictate what a player does, yet it can still be changed. 

 

I've seen umps have all kinds of different strike out calls.  I also think a lot of umps make that similar call (which is what he claims) where you do the strike 3 call with an out sign. 

 

That said, I long said if I were Sciosc, I'd be mad at the umps signaling because I still think that ball hit the ground.  I have yet to see any conclusive evidence to tell me it didn't.  I also never heard any footage of the ump saying it was caught clean or saying it wasn't caught clean. 

 

Sure the ump could have done a better job about being loud, but at the same time, its the catchers job to make the tag and I think the one case you can make from the Sox side is that Paul threw the ball back to the mound before the ump even made his next signal (because AJ had turned around) and than ran back.

Also good job of AJ by selling himself on that, usually guys wouldn't run but he did and he made it happen. I absolutely LOVE this guy, he is a true f***ing gamer.

 

MB held it down, AJ gave us the opportunity to win, Ozuna with the steal and Crede to end it with the clutch hit.

[IlliniKrush]

Well, BBTN went back and looked at tape.

 

Found two different times where there was a strike three swinging on a sox batter. He went arm out, fist. In the same time frame (lazily). Same thing he did in the 9th.

[bmags]

Well, BBTN went back and looked at tape.

 

Found two different times where there was a strike three swinging on a sox batter. He went arm out, fist. In the same time frame (lazily). Same thing he did in the 9th.

 

great...

 

but yet

 

the white sox won. be happy buddy.

[whitesoxfan99]

Well, BBTN went back and looked at tape.

 

Found two different times where there was a strike three swinging on a sox batter. He went arm out, fist. In the same time frame (lazily). Same thing he did in the 9th.

Right, but on a third strike wouldn't you signal strike than out every time. It seems to me that every umpire does it.

[ZoomSlowik]

Regardless of the controversial nature of the play, they didn't lose the game directly because of the call. It's a lot like the whole Bartman thing. Yeah, it sucked, but if you would just make the damn play, or in this case, make a pitch to get a guy out when you already have two strikes on him, it wouldn't have mattered.

 

As for the call itself, I'm not sure about the official technical rule, but that isn't necessarily the be all and end all anyways. I can't think of an ump in the league that calls that strike zone like the rule book says, which is that it is supposed to range from the knees to just under the armpits. Plus, we all know that the signals from umps can vary a bit. I seriously doubt they'd be able to make an official protest and try to get it replayed, if for no other reason that the MLB wouldn't do that in the playoffs. They'd never hear the end of it if the league reversed the result of the play. Theoretically the same thing probably could have been done in New York when Jeffrey Mayer (think that was the kid's name) reached over the outfield wall to catch a deep fly ball. It stood as a homerun despite the interference, and I would expect the same thing to happen.

 

I think the ball might have bounced in. On one of the angles, it looked like the ball skipped a bit before it even reached the glove, although it wasn't evident on the others. Secondly, on the straight on close up angle, it looked like the ball clearly bounced up at the end of the play, meaning it had to hit either the ground or the lip of Paul's glove.

 

Regardless, I'm not going to complain. The way our offense has played, we should be going to Anaheim down 2-0, but Mark and that break has bailed us out. Hopefully our offense can wake up a bit and get us into the series.

Edited October 13, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[IlliniKrush]

great...

 

but yet

 

the white sox won. be happy buddy.

I am, dude.

 

I'm just discussing baseball/umpiring. I'm not b****ing. It's good discussion, nothing more.

[fathom]

This play was nothing like the Bartman play. The Bartman play still would have required a sensational catch by Alou, and the Cubs still weren't out of the inning. I'm thrilled we won...but we caught a huge break.

[Dick Allen]

That was a huge break. The ball may have hit the ground but the ump used the universal out sign which should never happen if the batter is not out. You can't go by verbal only, there is no way everyone would be able to hear him unless they were playing at USCF in April. The out sign means out. I have never seen an umpire use the out sign on balls in the dirt. You can be sure that you will never see Eddings use it in that situation either. It would be interesting to see other times a dropped 3rd strike occurred with him behind the plate. I would be willing to bet he didn't use the out sign. AJ sold it to him. Its nice to be on the right end of a break, as Wimpy would say in the immortal words of the late Aurelio Rodriquez, "we take dat one."

[Rex Hudler]

I gotta disagree with ya here somewhat Krush....

 

On the play in question...

 

1. I have no doubt the ball hit the ground. There was a definite change of direction just as the ball was entering the web of the glove. It was about as close as it can get and most of the time, the umpire will just ring the batter up in that situation, but tonight he did not.

 

2. The home plate umpire immediately put his right hand to the side, which is an indication that the play is still live. That clearly indicates to me that he thought the ball hit the ground and wasn't calling AJ out.

 

3. What I cannot figure out is that he made an out/strike indication shortly after that. I don't know what that indication was for. If you go back and look at it, he made that motion almost simultaneously when Paul was letting go of the ball toward the mound. Paul was out in front of the plate along the baseline when he did this so there is no way he was tossing the ball to the mound because he saw that motion. He had already made the assumption the out was recorded. One could argue that the motion Eddings (sp?) made froze other players such as the pitcher, who could have reacted in time to throw AJ out. But I can't buy the argument that Paul threw the ball back because Eddings had called him out. Paul COULD NOT have seen that.

 

If the umpire did not verbally call him out, which all parties seem to agree he did not, Paul cannot make the assumption he did. Again, Paul was throwing the ball to the mound as the fist pump was made, which was behind JP. Paul cannot use that argument.

 

4. This play is probably called the other way 8 out of 10 times, but if Eddings thought it hit the ground (I am assuming he was going on sound, because that is almost impossible for the home plate umpire to see) then it is legit. I just can't understand the initial motion of safe/ball is live (right arm extended) followed by the strike/out motion. I umpired for 10 years and can't figure out any reasoning for both motions.

 

The bottom line is the Sox caught a break. AJ was heads up, realizing that Eddings never said "he's out" which is typical after such a strikeout. Paul made an assumption that would not get him in trouble most times, but today it did. The Sox got a break, but the Angels DID NOT get screwed!

[IlliniKrush]

2. The home plate umpire immediately put his right hand to the side, which is an indication that the play is still live. That clearly indicates to me that he thought the ball hit the ground and wasn't calling AJ out.

Rex, the one thing i point to is that on BBTN they went back and looked at some strikeouts swinging by our batters. He did the exact same motion. Arm out for swung through, fist for out. If Eddings is trying to defend himself by saying "that's my strike call", on the two replays they showed, he would have went arm out, fist...another fist? or some sort of other motion? But he didn't. So that's kind of interesting.

 

Also, though the ball changed direction, it could have done that in the mitt, easily. I still have no clue if it did or didn't, but if it hit dirt, you would have seen dirt fly, no?

 

Also, Rex, i think Paul tossed the ball because he didn't say "no catch" or "no, no!" for the catch, something like that. I realize Paul didn't see the fist motion, but every other Angel did.

 

It's good to hear some other perspective though.

[S720]

I gotta disagree with ya here somewhat Krush....

 

On the play in question...

 

1. I have no doubt the ball hit the ground. There was a definite change of direction just as the ball was entering the web of the glove.  It was about as close as it can get and most of the time, the umpire will just ring the batter up in that situation, but tonight he did not.

 

2. The home plate umpire immediately put his right hand to the side, which is an indication that the play is still live. That clearly indicates to me that he thought the ball hit the ground and wasn't calling AJ out.

 

3. What I cannot figure out is that he made an out/strike indication shortly after that. I don't know what that indication was for. If you go back and look at it, he made that motion almost simultaneously when Paul was letting go of the ball toward the mound. Paul was out in front of the plate along the baseline when he did this so there is no way he was tossing the ball to the mound because he saw that motion. He had already made the assumption the out was recorded. One could argue that the motion Eddings (sp?) made froze other players such as the pitcher, who could have reacted in time to throw AJ out. But I can't buy the argument that Paul threw the ball back because Eddings had called him out. Paul COULD NOT have seen that. 

 

If the umpire did not verbally call him out, which all parties seem to agree he did not, Paul cannot make the assumption he did.  Again, Paul was throwing the ball to the mound as the fist pump was made, which was behind JP.  Paul cannot use that argument. 

 

4. This play is probably called the other way 8 out of 10 times, but if Eddings thought it hit the ground (I am assuming he was going on sound, because that is almost impossible for the home plate umpire to see) then it is legit. I just can't understand the initial motion of safe/ball is live (right arm extended) followed by the strike/out motion. I umpired for 10 years and can't figure out any reasoning for both motions.

 

The bottom line is the Sox caught a break. AJ was heads up, realizing that Eddings never said "he's out" which is typical after such a strikeout. Paul made an assumption that would not get him in trouble most times, but today it did. The Sox got a break, but the Angels DID NOT get screwed!

 

GREAT OBSERVATION REX!

[Rex Hudler]

Rex, the one thing i point to is that on BBTN they went back and looked at some strikeouts swinging by our batters. He did the exact same motion. Arm out for swung through, fist for out. If Eddings is trying to defend himself by saying "that's my strike call", on the two replays they showed, he would have went arm out, fist...another fist? or some sort of other motion? But he didn't. So that's kind of interesting.

 

Also, though the ball changed direction, it could have done that in the mitt, easily. I still have no clue if it did or didn't, but if it hit dirt, you would have seen dirt fly, no?

 

Also, Rex, i think Paul tossed the ball because he didn't say "no catch" or "no, no!" for the catch, something like that. I realize Paul didn't see the fist motion, but every other Angel did.

 

It's good to hear some other perspective though.

 

-- The motion is irrelevant because Paul made the decision to toss the ball back to the mound without seeing that motion. There is NO way he saw it. He was in front of it. If they want to argue the pitcher could have ran to the ball and thrown him out, fine. But that is not the argument the Angels or media are hanging their collective hats on.

-- As an umpire in that situation, you are not saying "no catch" like you would in a trap/no trap call in the infield or outfield. You say strike three and shut the hell up. It is not up to the umpire to in essence tell the fielding team what to do, nor to give the runner a heads up to go.

 

It's the same as if a runner slides at the plate and never touches it and the catcher never tags him. You don't say anything, you just do nothing. It is up to the players to play the game if you don't call him out.

 

-- The motion he made/makes was weird. Sciossia is making the assumption that the umpire called him out, but verbally I don't think he did. Maybe 9 out of 10 times that call goes against the Sox, but that doesn't make tonight's call wrong. The catcher typically will tag the runner as he stands in front of him just to be sure 9 out of 10 times. Paul didn't. So be it.

 

-- The ball can't change direction in the glove while the glove remains still. The glove did not move until the ball hit the web of the glove, after it changed direction. I agree there seemed to be indecision by Eddings which didn't help, but I have no doubt the ball skipped into the glove. And no, a ball barely skipping off the ground would not necessarily throw up dirt in that situation. The way the fields are manicured the infield clay is top dressed with Turface or Pro's Choice, whatever dressing they use. The field is very hard. There is no loose dirt and if it just skipped, you would not necessarily see the field dressing fly when that close to the glove.

 

--I'm not saying Eddings did everything right on the play. His actions were confusing to say the least, but the bottom line is that AJ finished out the play and the Angels did not.