No, he explained all of this in his press conference. The sideways hand means one thing (don't remember what), and the pumped fist is the strike call. He didn't call the guy out. He called a strike. Again, the batter (opposing catcher) realized this from being behind the plate all day long. If he clearly called an out, the batter wouldn't have run to first.
They got screwed, that is his "out" call.... The ump blew it, but the catcher should have not taken anything for granted. Bad call. DD
Exactly. He made two signals. If you caught Baseball Tonight you would have caught a great analysis of that play. They took a look at video throughout the whole game, and the umpire used the same mechanic... extending his right arm then the pump fist to signal an out. The batter was out, the ump called him out, but allowed the play to continue. And of course the guy's not gonna admit he made a mistake afterwards.
Two things of note from Baseball Tonight: John Kruk pointed out that the catcher can't see the hand signals since they are behind him, and if you watch the replay, he was already running off the field before the ump even made the fist out/strike call. Catchers rely on verbal calls, not the fists or what not. Besides which, no one has explained why the batter knew to run to first. If it was such an obvious call, and the ump clearly made an out call, what was the batter thinking? He clearly knew he had not been called out. It was the catcher that didn't realize that.
sorry, but you are DEAD WRONG. the ump motioned the strike, and then montioned the OUT. there is no denying this, every video analyst said the same thing... yet you take the umpire's word over them? hmm, i wonder who has MUCH MORE TO LOSE??? when that 2nd motion was made, the inning was over. period. it blows my mind that you are even arguing this.
The pitcher can see the umpires calls and he saw that the umpire called him out. Catcher sees all his teammates running off the field, obviously, an out call. Second, the batter didn't know to run to first. He thought about it after he took a step toward the dugout. I doubt he was listening to the umpire after his swing. He was probably thinking, "****, I missed". Then tried to screw with the umpire's mind by running to first. Apparently, it worked.
i saw the on the field interview with the batter, all he said was that he thought the ball had hit the ground - WHICH IT DIDN'T - that's why he ran. of course he started running after the umpire had already called him OUT.
On the video that you're referring to, the BT analysis was terrible. They showed two other strikeouts. That's fine and all. What they should have shown is a regular first-strike swing and miss. If he's making the same motions then, that's what's important. Presumably, the "out" part of the call is verbal - that's what needs to be clarified. Harold Reynolds did say that he does the pump fist thing on every strike, but they didn't show video of it.
According to the video, it did hit the ground. Or at best, it hit the ground and the mitt at the same time. It's certainly not clear that it didn't hit the ground.
You can assume what you want, but he indicated otherwise. He's had experience with this - he was on the other side of the problem last year in a game against Boston. And he clearly said that when he realized the ump hadn't called him out, he ran to first - he didn't realize it until he noticed that the out call wasn't made. You can choose to believe that he was trying to screw with the ump's mind, I guess.
The camera is at an angle to the catcher and ball. That is why it looks like it was on the ground. From the side shots, it is clearly off the ground. Also, if the ball hits the dirt, dirt would spray up. That did not happen. I'm still surprised you are arguing.
Major, are you seeing things? dude.....the side view showed the ball did not hit the ground. DUHHH..... and yeah and if it really did hit the ground dirt would be splashing a bit and i did not see any. common sense dude.... and the umpire did call a strike and an out. whatever, the guy was out. i don't care about the angels catcher not tagging him or not. the umpire called him a strike. and an out.
I went to bed before this happened (damn getting up at 4:30 in the morning) but I saw the replays, what seemed like, hundreds of times. I am not convinced at all that the ball hit the ground - sure looked like a clean catch by Josh Paul. I think the homeplate umpire froze up aka got a "deer in the headlights" look and then knew he blew the call but didn't want to admit it. Credit A.J. Pieryzinski (sp?) for even making it an issue by running to first. One of the few times you will ever see that work but much to the chagrin of the Angels and Mike Scioscia, it worked against them last night. Of course, you can easily say that if Escobar had gotten Crede out, it never would have gotten any attention. Also, there was always the possibility of the Angels losing in extra innings. Yet, that missed call surely didn't help the Angels' chances of winning; just made it a lot tougher.
I didn't see the play but I think it's perfectly justified to signal out (because he has technically struck out) and still let the man run down to first, if the ball is dropped. Didn't Nolan have 4 strikeouts in an inning once. I mean the umpire has to signal that it was a strikeout.
Yeah, I thought they always called a batter out even if there was a past ball or something on strike three. My favorite argument in this whole mess (and I'm not even sure what I think happened) is that because the catcher said he caught it, then he caught it. Yeah, the catcher has no incentive to lie at that point. Maybe it was a bad call, but bottom line, they had a guy on first with 2 outs. They should've gotten Crede out.
He had the ball cleanly in his mitt, and Pierzynski, a fellow catcher, isn't exactly speedy and didn't even run immediately. If he had any doubt, getting up and tagging him after making a clean pick would have been extremely easy. Bottom line was, it gave the Sox an extra chance. Crede was only a .250 hitter during the regular season (was actually a .290 hitter with men on and 2 out over the season). Any type of base hit scores a speedy runner from 2nd running on contact. Basically, in a total vacuum, Crede will drive in that run about 1/4 of the time. Never mind the fact the Angels were in a hostile environment with all sorts of psychological advantages favoring the White Sox after that call. Giving someone an extra 25% chance in such a low scoring game is pretty significant, imo.
The important question is not what the ump called, but what he didn't call. On a dropped third strike, an ump will call "no catch, no catch" or something similar. I've yet to hear or read that he called "no catch". From everything I've seen, heard and read, he blew it and blew it badly. He may has well have just awarded Pierzynski first base as he exited the on-deck circle.
