|
|
#21
10-13-2005, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
And Paul should have just tagged him to make sure, but I'm guessing he thought it was a catch and that there was no question about it. [/ QUOTE ] 1. I don't see why Paul needed to tag him out when it was an obvious catch. This happens all the time in baseball and the catcher never tags the runner just because "it's close". 2. The ball can change direction not only when it hits the ground, but also when it hits the inside of the catchers mitt. There's no superglue on the inside of the mitt to stop the ball from moving. 3. The ball was obviously caught. 4. Even if the ball did indeed hit the ground, it shouldn't matter. The umpires routinely call people out in the same (or similar) manner so there's quite a bit of ambiguity in the system. However, once the catcher throws the ball back out to the mound and starts walking off the field, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt due to this ambiguity. If this isn't true, then outfielders after catching the ball would need to wait for the out call by the umpire before throwing the ball back to the infield, trying to get the runners who are tagging up. What if an outfielder caught the ball, threw a one hopper to the catcher and then the umpire said "I never actually called him out, you dropped the ball next to home plate so the batter is safe."? These types of implicit assumptions are made all the time by players and if they can't make them, it would drastically reduce the speed and excitement of the game. 
|
|
#22
10-13-2005, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
The spirit of that rule makes this call extra ridiculous. It is clearly intended for balls that get away from the catcher and roll to the backstop or similar to give the runner a chance to reach first. Even if a ball scraped the dirt, which this ball clearly did not, there is no need for a tag. If the catcher comes up with the ball cleanly, the spirit of the rule is that the batter is out, end of play. If it hits the ground, the runner certainly still has the right to run, and if he makes it safely to first, more power to him. However, this ball clearly did not hit the ground, there is no angle to even suggest it hit the ground, and the call on the field should have been quite simple. There is just absolutely no way you can give a runner firstbase on a play like that. Absolutely none, and it is inexcusable.
|
|
#23
10-13-2005, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
The spirit of that rule makes this call extra ridiculous. It is clearly intended for balls that get away from the catcher [/ QUOTE ] So now we are interpreting the "spirit" of the rule? You know the "intention" of the rule? The rule is black and white (rule 609B). Whether he caught it or not is debatable and inconclusive. But you calling me biased (which I am to some degree) is ludicrous since you are even moreso with your all knowing interpretions. I'm flexible here and I admitted it was questionable. You are trying to rewrite the rulebook!
|
|
#24
10-13-2005, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
And Paul should have just tagged him to make sure, but I'm guessing he thought it was a catch and that there was no question about it. [/ QUOTE ] 1. I don't see why Paul needed to tag him out when it was an obvious catch. This happens all the time in baseball and the catcher never tags the runner just because "it's close". Did you read the 2nd half of what you quoted. I said the same thing there. He thought he caught it therefor he didn't think he needed to tag him - I understand this. My point is that its the 9th inning of the 2nd game of the ALCS. If there is ANY question, I'm tagging the batter. Again, there probably wasn't any question to Paul, he just happened to be incorrect (not wether he caught it, but there was some question). 2. The ball can change direction not only when it hits the ground, but also when it hits the inside of the catchers mitt. There's no superglue on the inside of the mitt to stop the ball from moving. Trust me when I tell you I understand that a ball can move in the catchers glove. It appeared to me on the replay that the ball was moving downward but changed to an upward trajectory just before it got the catcher's glove which makes me think that it changed direction. There was however, no dust which makes me think it didn't. We can go rounds about wether it hit the ground or not - I think its inconclusive and anyone that says that there is NO quesion either way is exaggerating their point. 3. The ball was obviously caught. um, read my last sentence again. 4. Even if the ball did indeed hit the ground, it shouldn't matter. The umpires routinely call people out in the same (or similar) manner so there's quite a bit of ambiguity in the system. However, once the catcher throws the ball back out to the mound and starts walking off the field, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt due to this ambiguity. I think we generally agree on this point -- hit the ground or not, the umpire needs to rule decisively right then and there so that the players can act accordingly. Its like when the count is 3-2 and there is a man on 1st and 1 out and the catcher tells the ump over his shoulder "just give me a quick call either way so I know" -- the players need to know what the ruling is so that they can act. If this isn't true, then outfielders after catching the ball would need to wait for the out call by the umpire before throwing the ball back to the infield, trying to get the runners who are tagging up. What if an outfielder caught the ball, threw a one hopper to the catcher and then the umpire said "I never actually called him out, you dropped the ball next to home plate so the batter is safe."? These types of implicit assumptions are made all the time by players and if they can't make them, it would drastically reduce the speed and excitement of the game. This analogy is absurd. Bottom line ... the ump blew it by NOT giving a definitive call on the spot. Whether he got the "did it hit the ground or not" call correct is pretty irrelevant. If he rules right away that it either did or did not then the players can react to it. Hopefully we will get out of this a universal set of "calls" for behind the plate umps. I'm tired of seeing umps make a show of ringing a guy up and taking forever to make a ball/strike call. Umps don't need a "style" they need to get the information to the players. FishNChips
|
|
#25
10-13-2005, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The spirit of that rule makes this call extra ridiculous. It is clearly intended for balls that get away from the catcher [/ QUOTE ] So now we are interpreting the "spirit" of the rule? You know the "intention" of the rule? The rule is black and white (rule 609B). Whether he caught it or not is debatable and inconclusive. But you calling me biased (which I am to some degree) is ludicrous since you are even moreso with your all knowing interpretions. I'm flexible here and I admitted it was questionable. You are trying to rewrite the rulebook! [/ QUOTE ] I don't think he's biased, just arrogant. Rules are rules, although some rules in baseball are followed differently than perhaps their "textbook" definition (strike zone size, guys straddling 2nd to turn a double play without touching the base, etc). I think the call was BS, but I would never justify overturning it based on the spirit of the rule.
|
|
#26
10-13-2005, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The spirit of that rule makes this call extra ridiculous. It is clearly intended for balls that get away from the catcher [/ QUOTE ] So now we are interpreting the "spirit" of the rule? You know the "intention" of the rule? The rule is black and white (rule 609B). Whether he caught it or not is debatable and inconclusive. But you calling me biased (which I am to some degree) is ludicrous since you are even moreso with your all knowing interpretions. I'm flexible here and I admitted it was questionable. You are trying to rewrite the rulebook! [/ QUOTE ] If you're going to play that game, then we have to go back and scratch a lot of games from the record books because the umpires regularly do not call the hitter out in the correct manner. If the umpires did do this, then there would be no question as to whether or not AJ was called out and no debate about the call since it would either be obvious that he was called out or obvious that he was not called out (in which case he was obviously safe at first). Since umpires don't rigorously follow the rules about what consitutes an out call you have to follow the spirit of the rule. EVERYBODY on the field though the umpire had called him out. It would have been very easy to get him out if they thought he hadn't. Because of these two facts, the umpire needs to call the hitter out. It's his ambiguity that mislead everybody on the Angels on a play where the hitter would be out 99% of the time.
|
|
#27
10-13-2005, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The spirit of that rule makes this call extra ridiculous. It is clearly intended for balls that get away from the catcher [/ QUOTE ] So now we are interpreting the "spirit" of the rule? You know the "intention" of the rule? The rule is black and white (rule 609B). Whether he caught it or not is debatable and inconclusive. But you calling me biased (which I am to some degree) is ludicrous since you are even moreso with your all knowing interpretions. I'm flexible here and I admitted it was questionable. You are trying to rewrite the rulebook! [/ QUOTE ] If you're going to play that game, then we have to go back and scratch a lot of games from the record books because the umpires regularly do not call the hitter out in the correct manner. If the umpires did do this, then there would be no question as to whether or not AJ was called out and no debate about the call since it would either be obvious that he was called out or obvious that he was not called out (in which case he was obviously safe at first). Since umpires don't rigorously follow the rules about what consitutes an out call you have to follow the spirit of the rule. EVERYBODY on the field though the umpire had called him out. It would have been very easy to get him out if they thought he hadn't. Because of these two facts, the umpire needs to call the hitter out. It's his ambiguity that mislead everybody on the Angels on a play where the hitter would be out 99% of the time. [/ QUOTE ] I think your 2nd paragraph is right on the money. I think your comments on the "spirit" portion are a bit off though. The poster that originally brought up the "sprit" of the rule stated something to the effect of [paraphrase] "its for balls that get to the backstop, not balls that may or may not have bounced and are cleanly picked by the catcher." As stated, the spirit of the rule is irrelevant. I don't know the exact verbage of the rule, but if the ball hits the ground after strike 3, the runner may attempt to advance to 1st. Your point about the spirit of the rule is correct, the ump acted like it was strike 3, he's out, done. But when AJ ran to 1st the ump was like "uhhh, ok, yeah, it bounced and he wasn't tagged, ok" and that's wrong. FishNChips
|
|
#28
10-13-2005, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to play that game [/ QUOTE ] Here's my game. Someone asked for my opinion as a Sox fan. I gave it. Reread it if you have to. This guy goes off telling me how biased the post is because I am couldn't tell if the ball was caught or in the dirt. Then he comes in with this spirit and intention crap where he has no frikken idea what he's talking about. That's my game! Reread the first post.
|
|
#29
10-13-2005, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you're going to play that game [/ QUOTE ] Here's my game. Someone asked for my opinion as a Sox fan. I gave it. Reread it if you have to. This guy goes off telling me how biased the post is because I am couldn't tell if the ball was caught or in the dirt. Then he comes in with this spirit and intention crap where he has no frikken idea what he's talking about. That's my game! Reread the first post. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I didn't mean it as an attack. I only meant to point out that the umpire is essentially using the same signal to mean two different things. Since he does this, it's really up to the players on the field to interpret what he means. Since the players decided he meant it as an out call, it should stand as an out.
|
|
#30
10-13-2005, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I guess MLB had to create drama somehow...
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean it as an attack [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough [ QUOTE ] Since the players decided he meant it as an out call, it should stand as an out [/ QUOTE ] Pierzynski didn't [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The ump screwed up. He wasn't decisive. I still honestly can't tell what he did? He says he called a strike and not an out. The replay (of the fist) seems to be interpreted either way depending on the intrepreter? I honestlty didn't have a lot of time to watch all of the sportscenter in depth analysis but I have heard "experts" on both sides of the fence.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
