****THE Official ALCS CHISOX vs. LAA Thread**** - Page 16

jstnrgrs · #**151** 10-12-2005, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That play counts as a strike out regardless, so maybe the ring up is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you care only about the pitcher's stats, and not who wins the game.

Voltron87 · #**152** 10-12-2005, 11:32 PM

back, and to the left.

Jim Kuhn · #**153** 10-12-2005, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You naysayers need IRREFUTABLE evidence to overturn this call. More than one of us agrees with the original assessment that it hit dirt first.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original call was OUT - right?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

mrbaseball · #**154** 10-12-2005, 11:33 PM

That replay will be analyzed more than the Zapruder film. After seeing it a dozen times I still can't tell. Very close but the bottom line is they called him safe at first.

#**155** 10-12-2005, 11:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That ball clearly hit the dirt before he caught it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're fuking blind, Homeboy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is at least 3 of us now that say it hit the dirt. How can we see something that didn't happen? Just not possible.

We all agree that the catcher caught it. We all saw that. But those of us lucky enough, also saw it hit dirt first. Otherwise we wouldn't say so.

Voltron87 · #**156** 10-12-2005, 11:33 PM

i think the ball hit the dirt, but im not sure what should have happened on the play. if the ump rings him out with the fist and says it, the inning is over

so that the ball hit the dirt is the only conclusion i have drawn, and im about 75% sure

JayLear · #**157** 10-12-2005, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That play counts as a strike out regardless, so maybe the ring up is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you care only about the pitcher's stats, and not who wins the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying, I'm not sure what the rule is here. If he rings it up it counts as the third strike, but does it necessarily mean he's out in this scenario?

Besides, Paul didn't see that signal. In fact, I believe he rolled the ball away before the ump ever made it.

Hal 2000 · #**158** 10-12-2005, 11:34 PM

I'd love to see Molina put a symbolic tag on the first Chicago batter to strike out in game 3.

#**159** 10-12-2005, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You naysayers need IRREFUTABLE evidence to overturn this call. More than one of us agrees with the original assessment that it hit dirt first.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original call was OUT - right?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you POSITIVE that Josh Paul either saw the out signal, or heard the call verbally?

I don't see how you can be positive of this. Paul effed up and should tag the guy. Nuff said.

jstnrgrs · #**160** 10-12-2005, 11:35 PM

So the ump now claims that his signal was for strike three. So how are the players suposed to know the difference between "strike three" and "strike three, your out". This umpire looks totaly confused in this press confrence.