he screwed up. i don't think there's any way around it. if it happened to my team, i'd be pissed. that's a big call to blow in a huge situation.
Here is what one of my favorite sportswriters, Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe, had to say about last night's game: Ruling a black mark for game By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe Columnist | October 13, 2005 CHICAGO -- As bad as it gets. Hang your head, Major League Baseball. That means you, Bud. And all you umpires -- Doug Eddings, Ted Barrett, Ron Kulpa, Ed Rapuano, Randy Marsh, and crew chief Jerry Crawford. You stole a playoff game from the Los Angeles Angels last night. It's a game they'll never get back. A black eye on the sport. A disgrace. Am I clear here? The White Sox beat the Angels, 2-1, in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 2 of the American League Championship Series last night when Joe Crede doubled home pinch runner Pablo Ozuna on an 0-and-2 pitch with two outs. But Crede never should have batted. He got to hit only because A.J. Pierzynski was allowed to run to first base on an alleged dropped third strike by Angels catcher Josh Paul. Some might put Paul in the Goat Hall of Shame alongside Mickey Owen, but that's totally unfair because replays showed conclusively that Paul did not drop the ball. Replays also showed what 41,013 fans in attendance and a national television audience saw: Eddings, the plate umpire, rang up Pierzynski. Every kid knows that when the umpire signals ''out," the play is over. That's why the Angels started jogging toward their dugout, and Paul rolled the ball toward the mound and started for the dugout. That's why Pierzynski took a step toward his (third base side) dugout. But then Pierzynski had an idea and reversed direction and started toward first. Chaos ensued and not one of the other five umpires would admit they saw Paul catch the ball and/or Eddings signal ''out." It was difficult to tell whether Paul made a clean catch, but there was no mistake about Eddings's emphatic strike three call. Angels manager Mike Scioscia came out to argue and made his case with every umpire he could find. No dice. Pierzynski was allowed to stay at first. Ozuna stole second, drawing no throw, then cruised home with the winning run when Crede crushed a pitch off the wall in left. Series tied, 1-1. Good thing a call like this did not go against the home team. Had this happened to the Yankees in New York, or the Red Sox in Boston, one shudders to think about what might have transpired. I was reminded of Bill Lee's complaint that Darrell Johnson didn't argue emphatically enough on the infamous Larry Barnett/Ed Armbrister play in 1975. Lee said, ''I would have Van Goghed him." Scioscia was composed when it was over. ''[The umpires] said the play wasn't finished," said the Angels manager. ''They said the ball hit the dirt. We asked for help from five other umpires. We would have asked six if there had been another one out there . . . When an ump calls him out, when he rings him up with a fist, he's out." Eddings claimed he never called Pierzynski out. He said he merely called ''strike." ''That's my mechanism for calling 'strike,' when it's a swinging strike," said the plate umpire. He was asked if his mechanism for calling a strike had ever been confused with an out call and said, ''Not until now." It's a cheesy explanation. ''Doug did not signal 'out,' " said umpire supervisor Rich Rieker. Oh yes, he did, Rich. We all saw. If that's his ''mechanism" for calling a swinging strike, he needs to change his game. Everyone stopped playing when he made the signal, and that's why the controversy will live in infamy. ''Doug ruled that the ball was trapped," added Rieker. ''And the replay shows there's definitely a change in direction. At best, it's inconclusive." Not to these eyes. The ball was caught. And not one of the five umpires facing the play ruled in the Angels' favor. It's customary for the plate umpire to yell, ''no catch, no catch," if he believes a third strike was trapped or dropped. All parties agreed that Eddings did not do this. ''I didn't hear him call me out," said Pierzynski, who happens to be a catcher, as well. ''Josh didn't tag me. I think he thought he caught it. It was a tough situation. I ran." Of course, if Paul had merely made the standard tag, we would have moved on to the 10th inning and who knows what would have happened. Or maybe if Scioscia had appealed to third base umpire Rapuano initially he might have had more luck than he did when he went to Rapuano on his second visit. Instead, the White Sox were allowed to hit after three made outs in the ninth, and Chicago was the winner. Paul was in the game only because Scioscia had pinch hit for Jose Molina in the eighth, and Bengie Molina was designated hitter in Game 2. Too bad. This was a terrific baseball game, with great pitching by Chicago's Mark Buehrle and four Angel hurlers. The Angels and White Sox have played a couple of tense games with little to choose. But now there's a cloud over the entire series. Dan Shaughnessy is a Globe columnist. His e-mail address is dshaughnessy@globe.com. url: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2005/10/13/ruling_a_black_mark_for_game/?page=1
Again, I'm not aruging whether or not the right call was made, but everyone was running to the dugout before the "out" call was made. To say they waited until the "out" call was made is simply wrong.
If the ball hits the ground and the mitt at the same time, any dirt kick up will be in the mitt. Part of this problem started because everyone though the call was that he dropped the ball - which he didn't and which was never called. Even that Boston Globe article still thinks that: <I>He got to hit only because A.J. Pierzynski was allowed to run to first base on <B>an alleged dropped third strike</B> by Angels catcher Josh Paul. Some might put Paul in the Goat Hall of Shame alongside Mickey Owen, but that's totally unfair because replays showed conclusively that Paul <B>did not drop the ball.</B></I> This is the stupid logic that keeps perpetuating this - that's not at all what the call was. From all the replays I've seen, it's close enough to be unsure. When I saw the first replay, I thought it hit the ground. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Regardless, the <B>player was not called out</B> no matter how much you'd like to beleive the fist was an out call. The batter recognized this after a second when the ump didn't call him out - the backup catcher on the Angels screwed up. The catcher had assumed it was an out - he started running off before the fist call was even made. Bottomline, Angels could have been out of that inning at any number of points: 1. By finishing out the play like any catcher does on a close play by just tagging the batter standing there. Being a backup catcher didn't help. 2. By actually waiting for an out call before wandering off the field. 3. By actually getting an out instead of allowing the runner to advance 3 bases with two outs in the inning (steal, double). This is no different than if a runner made it to first on a bad call at first base or walked on a bad strike call with two outs. It happens in baseball - all the time. I gained a lot of respect for the Angels manager yesterday - he took the high road and accepted that the one play didn't cost them the game.
Add to all this that the technical rule apparently doesn't require the ump to make any signal. Regardless of the ump making an "Out" call with his hand...the batter may still advance if the ball was in the dirt on a Strike 3. I personally DONT believe the ball was in the dirt.. but if the ump did (as is still being claimed), then he was still ok making the "out" call and then allowing the play to continue. I think he should give some indication that it wasn't caught...but it's not in the rules.
That's one of the fist things you learn in little league, if there is any doubt the ball wasn't caught cleanly, you run to first.
Alert play by the runner. I guess the catcher could've thrown to 1st just in case, then this would not be an issue.
1. Why would Josh Paul throw to first when he felt he had caught the ball? If he had any doubts, I think he would have thrown it to 1st base. 2. Also, the umpire said nothing - he definitely did not say what is normally said in that case which is "No catch, no catch" It was a blown call. Whether it really cost the Angels the game or not is open to debate, but it sure didn't help them in trying to win the game.
One of the articles on ESPN's website talks about how *most of the time* an umpire will say "no catch, no catch" in the situation that happened last night. Engels failed to do that and that was cited as another reason why the Angels didn't try to tag Pierzynski or throw down to 1st base.
On Baseball Tonight this evening, Larry Bowa, Kruk, and Harold Reynolds all said the ump made the right call, and that his signal was consistent all night long.
I bet what happened is the ump initially called an out, but once he saw the batter run towards first base, he must have assumed the ball hit the ground and changed his call from an out to a strike.
there's doubt...until the umpire signals the guy out! once he signalled the guy out..that's it. three outs. end of inning. if he's out, then by definition the inning is over. he signalled him out. he can tell us now that's his signal for a strike...but if it is, then he's wrong. because that's not a strike motion at all. now i will say the catcher isn't innocent here. he should have thrown the guy out anyway..or tagged him out. and i will also say this isn't why the angels lost. but it played a part, for sure. and Craig Reynolds was safe.
Two things - one, out calls are reversed quite often - mostly at home plate from what I've seen. On close plays at the plate, a player is often ruled out, but then if the ump then realizes the ball came out of the fielder's glove, changes the call to safe. So technically, once he rules out, that's not the end of it. As of this particular case, why didn't anyone complain about this on the other 100+ strike calls that he made during the game using that arm motion but not representing an out? Why did no one think that his exact same motion on every strike 1 and strike 2 was an out call? Besides which, the catcher ran of the field before the strike/out fist-call was ever even made. That said, I think his arm motion is stupid and should be changed. But it was pretty clear from the batter's reaction, the ump was making a verbal call of some sort on outs - the batter somehow figured out he hadn't been called out and ran to first, so there's something different that this ump does to signal an out.
I do think it will be interesting to see how the rest of the series plays out, and if the call lingers or if there are any other bad calls that the angels blow up about, etc. This could get quite amusing.
