Wow! Did any of you guys catch that horrible sequence of events? I hate it when an official messes up the game. EDIT: Here's the sequence of events for those who didn't watch the game. 1. Bottom of the 9th inning, 1-1. 2 outs, no one on base. 2. Full count 3-2 3. Pitch thrown low, batter swings and misses. 4. Catcher catches ball before it hits the dirt. He catchs it low but still doesn't let it hit the dirt. 5. Umpire makes TWO motions and CALLS the batter out. 6. Catchers and rest of players head off field. 7. Batter heads to dugout, looks at umpires, turns around and heads to first base. 8. Catcher rolls ball toward pitcher mound. 9. SAME Umpire says the batter is safe on first because there was no tag. THE SAME UMPIRE WHO CALLED HIM OUT SAYS HE's now safe on first. 10. Manager protests to no avail. Analysis: the catcher knows whether the ball is in the dirt. Why would the catcher leave and roll the ball toward the pitcher's mound? Every player and the fans believed it was out. Umpire CALLED the out....TWICE.
It was a bad call definitely, but the Angels didn't get "robbed". It was a 1-1 game at the time, so no telling what would have happened in extra innings.
There have been some bad non-calls throughout sports, but this one of the worst calls I have ever seen. What surprises me, why weren't the Angels playing under protest at that point?
They were robbed because at that point, they had a 50/50 chance of winning. The umpire 'robbed' them of their chance at winning.
i don't know if it ever accomplishes anything but it just means you want someone to rule on whether what happened was right and i guess if they say you got screwed you play again or from that point forward or something. i think when george brett got his homer taken away and went ballistic he was eventually given the homer and i wanna say they played the game from that point forward but i've never really been clear on how it was resolved. i can't believe they didn't protest either. either way, they got jobbed. it's not like even if it hit the ground something would've changed. the hitter was already going back to the dugout, the catcher would've just reached out and tagged him so the white sox have no reason to say anything other than extra innings should've happened. what i don't get is the ump called him out. how can they then say he's not after the angels already assume the inning is over with the out call? what are they supposed to do, just hold the ball until the ump is really sure he made the right call?
last year, i think the braves played one NLDS game against the astros under protest. but the braves ended up winning the game, so it didnt matter.
All that play did was put a man on first with two out. After that point, the Angels allowed a steal and gave up a game-winning double. That play in itself did not rob them of their chance to win. Besides which, after looking at the replay and hearing the umps, it seems the right call was made. It looks like the ball may have bounced. Obviously, the White Sox player realized he wasn't called out after a second and was smart enough to run to first. The Angels didn't complete the play. It sucks, but it was questionable enough that they should have just tagged the player.
I knew someone was going to mention that. Well, all I'm going to say is, I guess you didn't mind the missed 'out of bounds' call on Dallas during the Rox-Mavs series, since that play itself didn't cause the Rox to lose, it only tilted a close game in favor of the Mavs.
That call didn't rob us of a chance at winning either. It made things harder, certainly. And given the time-nature of basketball, it had a bigger impact. Man on first, two outs still requires a lot of things by both teams to let that man score. Probably 80% to 90% of the time, that guy doesn't score. That said, unlike that scenario, it's not clear this was the wrong call. You can't rob a team by making the correct call.
They talked about this in the umpire's conference. That's his strike signal - he does that on every strike. The batter (the opposing catcher who also sits back there) recognized it. He knew he hadn't been called out. The ump probably needs a better strike signal vs. out signal, but the teams should have known this.
It was a bad call. 1- The catcher knows if the ball hits the ground or not. He's a professional player who has played baseball for decades, probably since he's been a kid. We see a poor frame by frame of the play while he's one foot away. I think I'll go with the catcher. 2- Umpire CALLS the guy out. Thus, the CATCHER thinks, "Inning is over." It'd be different if the Umpire didn't call the guy out, but clearly he did. If the umpire didn't CALL HIM OUT, the catcher probably would've been careful and tag the batter. It made a BIG impact. 1 - Man on base. Pitch runner put in. Basically a very fast runner with a stolen base percentage probably up near 70-80%. 2- With a right handed pitcher, it's hard to throw him out on first. 3- So basically, the runner WILL get to 2nd base. 4- All that is needed is a hit. One hit. What is the chances of getting a hit? 20%? 25%? 30%? That's how much the umpire tilted it in the White Sox favor. Yes, in basketball, that bad call may have tilted it in favor of the Mavs by a larger margin, but still, a bad call is a bad call. Were they robbed of the game in the sense that the umpire 'gave' the game to the Sox? no. But they were robbed in the sense that a fair game was not called. It was a game tilted in favor of the Sox.
He made two signals. First he called strike. Then, when he saw the batter running toward first, he called an out.
