I guess MLB had to create drama somehow... - Page 2

FishNChips · #11 10-13-2005, 12:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's true we don't know who would have won, but the Angels shouldn't have to beat both the Sox and the umps to get a win--it's just a terrible way for a game to end.

On the bright side, it makes my prop for the series of Number of Games Decided by Horrible Ump Calls OVER 0.5 into a winner! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

MLB is clearly conspiring against the Angels. 3 games in 3 days in 3 time zones, the umpires waited until the 9th to "blow" a call.

come on, there is NO way MLB wants the White Sox in the Series, they are about as attractive to the American public as Roseanne Barr. Trust me, Bud wants the Angels in the WS.

As for worst call ever, I think that there are some who would argue that "The Call!" in the '85 World Series was worse.

Conspiracy Theorists of the world unite!
FishNChips

tolga · #12 10-13-2005, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's true we don't know who would have won, but the Angels shouldn't have to beat both the Sox and the umps to get a win--it's just a terrible way for a game to end.

On the bright side, it makes my prop for the series of Number of Games Decided by Horrible Ump Calls OVER 0.5 into a winner! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

MLB is clearly conspiring against the Angels. 3 games in 3 days in 3 time zones, the umpires waited until the 9th to "blow" a call.

come on, there is NO way MLB wants the White Sox in the Series, they are about as attractive to the American public as Roseanne Barr. Trust me, Bud wants the Angels in the WS.

As for worst call ever, I think that there are some who would argue that "The Call!" in the '85 World Series was worse.

Conspiracy Theorists of the world unite!
FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLin.

football4me6 · #13 10-13-2005, 02:39 PM

can we get a whitesox fans perspective on this call?
foots

Oski · #14 10-13-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On the bright side, it makes my prop for the series of Number of Games Decided by Horrible Ump Calls OVER 0.5 into a winner! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you got a good line.

I just found out I have one more to go since my bet says, "Will MORE THAN one game be decided by a Horrible Ump call, Yes or No." I wish they would have put a hook on that line so I would have known to lay off.

mrbaseball · #15 10-13-2005, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
whitesox fans perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

The ball clearly bounced about 6 inches in front of Pauls glove and the ump was temporarily blinded by the cloud of dust it kicked up. I honestly don't understand why there is controversy?

Okay seriously [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I thought it was a very close and very questionable call. The replays are inconclusive and after watching it a bunch of times I can't tell. Ump claims he never called him out. Ump claims he called strike 3 and waited for the action. Ump is trying to cover his ass! But I am undecided as to whether he called him out or not.

But Pierzynski made a heads up play. He saw an opportunity and went for it. 98% of player woulda hung their head and walked back to the dugout. But he saw a chance to maybe make something happen and it really did happen. He hit the longshot. He deserves a lot of credit for a very astute play amidst a pressure packed and confusing situation.

And you have to blame Paul. It was close enough where he shoulda tagged him. No reason not to. This happened because AJ had his head in the game and was focused and Paul wasn't.

Did we get away with one? Maybe. Probably. But it was because of headsup play and focus. Buehrle pitched the best game I have ever seen him throw. They needed a win and got it. Tainted perhaps but a win none the less.

MyTurn2Raise · #16 10-13-2005, 05:07 PM

I have to agree with FishNChips. The call last night was somewhat close. The 85 World series call at first base was not close at all. Unofrtunately, I have never gotten over it and still think of the 85 cards as world series champs (much like the 02 Miami Hurricanes in college football, only worse).
The name Deckinger still causes pure hatred in my heart.

IN case you couldn't tell, I'm a big-time Cards fan.

Also, the White Sox are not a team that MLB would push conspiracy guys. They are not an attractive option. I was in Champaign, IL last night (about 140 miles from Chicago and 175 from St. Louis), and the main fox game was the Cardinals and the Cardinals were drawing more interest at about a 3:1 ratio in the sports bar where I viewed the game.

There is no conspiracy. There are plenty of umpires/referees/officials across all major sports that are incompetent and fall subject to normal human biases in their decision making. Often times, a call was very close or they just didn't see it right. Just as often, they go into a game with a preconception of who should win, or who the favored team is, which actually leads them to call the game more favorably to that team. Moreover, they can be intimidated. I've watched enough big ten basketball in my life to know that some home courts are worth 8+ points in favorable calls per game. I think it's a stretch to say there is any conspiracy.

Except in the NBA, I don't trust that Stern guy at all.

Losing all · #17 10-13-2005, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the bright side, it makes my prop for the series of Number of Games Decided by Horrible Ump Calls OVER 0.5 into a winner! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you got a good line.

I just found out I have one more to go since my bet says, "Will MORE THAN one game be decided by a Horrible Ump call, Yes or No." I wish they would have put a hook on that line so I would have known to lay off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it's a push....

#18 10-13-2005, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whitesox fans perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

The ball clearly bounced about 6 inches in front of Pauls glove and the ump was temporarily blinded by the cloud of dust it kicked up. I honestly don't understand why there is controversy?

Okay seriously [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I thought it was a very close and very questionable call. The replays are inconclusive and after watching it a bunch of times I can't tell. Ump claims he never called him out. Ump claims he called strike 3 and waited for the action. Ump is trying to cover his ass! But I am undecided as to whether he called him out or not.

But Pierzynski made a heads up play. He saw an opportunity and went for it. 98% of player woulda hung their head and walked back to the dugout. But he saw a chance to maybe make something happen and it really did happen. He hit the longshot. He deserves a lot of credit for a very astute play amidst a pressure packed and confusing situation.

And you have to blame Paul. It was close enough where he shoulda tagged him. No reason not to. This happened because AJ had his head in the game and was focused and Paul wasn't.

Did we get away with one? Maybe. Probably. But it was because of headsup play and focus. Buehrle pitched the best game I have ever seen him throw. They needed a win and got it. Tainted perhaps but a win none the less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously MrBaseball I have a ton of respect for everything you say. This post is pretty clear bias tho. Anyone who says that the play was close either hasn't seen it or has a White Sox bias. It wasn't remotely close, there was no dust popping up, and the ball was just caught. Simple as that. There is absolutely no reason for Paul to tag him out because he knew, just like anyone who's seen it, that he caught the ball. The play by A.J. was as devious as it was headsup. It almost looked like he was trying to pull a fast one on the umpires on a blatantly obvious call. As far as the umpire, again that is wrong. The umpire did ring him up. He held up the fist indicating the out. If you watched the Molina at bat where he struck out, the ball hit the dirt, and the umpire waited until A.J. tagged him to hold up the fist. So yes, it was a blatantly missed call and if the Angels lose the series, they have someone to clearly blame. Was it the worst call in sports history? No, of course not, but it was certainly very close. Would be nice (in a fantasy world) to have someone on hand at the big games in situations like this to reverse the call and fire umpires on the spot.

mrbaseball · #19 10-13-2005, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't remotely close

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? It seems like about a 50/50 split of talking heads (and 2+2 posters) as to whether it hit the dirt or was a catch. It's EXTREMELY close.

FishNChips · #20 10-13-2005, 06:20 PM

I knew if I mentioned "the call" I'd get a Cards fan trying to fight through the twitching to type something coherent.

As a Dodger fan, what I remember about the 85 season is the Jack Clark homerun off Niedenfure (sp?) in the NLCS. See, now I'm twitching.

For what its worth, I only watched the play a couple of times, but I saw change of direction (no dust though which confused the hell out of me) and thought "yep, it must have hit the ground" - but I didn't watch the umps motion closely enough to give an opinion on that. It seems that would be the critical point here regardless of wether the ball hit the ground or not. The catcher can't see the fist pump so an "out" call is mandatory on close plays.

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.

Sucks for the Angels.
FishNChips