i didn't see the replays of him making that motion. this morning i heard sports radio guys saying that when they went back and checked it, he did not use that motion for anything other than calling people out. but i didn't see firsthand...and i, of course, was watching the astros while he was making those calls. i agree...the catcher wasn't relying on that motion. no doubt about that. that's why he's not innocent. but the other players in the field sure seemed to be relying on that as they started across the field. on that kind of play...a continuation play...it's not good enough to signal or yell out and then change your mind...because the play is still developing. i hear you...when you're making a safe/out call on a play that is concluding the action, you have the liberty of second-guessing yourself. not so when others are waiting on your decision to know how to continue within that same play. when you call a guy out at the plate like that...he's out. if the first baseman had run off the field relying on that call, there'd be no one there to catch the ball from the catcher. i guess the bottom line for me is that since i was a little boy playing baseball and watching baseball...holding up your hand in that way was a universal symbol for "you're out." so universal that we use it in metaphor in our everyday lives. in that situation, it's not good enough to change your mind as the ump. even if your first call was wrong...that's what you're going with. too many other people are relying on that first signal. btw...coming to Houston to catch any of these games this weekend???
On the first part - yeah, I was watching the Astros too. The BBTN people were saying that's his standard motion and he said it, but I didn't see it myself. That was one thing I would have liked to see on BBTN - they showed other strikeouts, but I wanted to see other strike calls. I won't be in town this weekend - I came for the 18 inning game, and that was enough for me for a while. I do have World Series tickets for games 3 and 4 if we should make it, though! I'm hoping to collect a few more if any of my friends here in Austin win the ticket lottery. You planning to go any of those games?
Uhh, no. The camera is at an angle, looking down at the ball. If the camera was flat on the ground, it would show that the ball didn't touch the ground. What was your claim about the dirt again? Dirt would spray into the glove? I don't see any dirt. Also, your claim about dirt only spraying into the glove is wrong. Dirt would be sprayed at a large angle. It's rather apparent.
I'm glad you're able to conclusively see there is no dark brown dirt in a dark brown glove on a TV image to conclusively say there was no dirt sprayed anywhere. Unfortunately, I don't have non-human eyesight and find that impossible to do. As far as spraying at a large angle - that would not happen if there were a glove around it, as there clearly is. Dirt cannot fly through objects - even fancy baseball dirt, amazingly enough. And camera angles explain nothing. You can clearly see a ball with a flattened bottom on that image - the result of hitting something below it. Unless the glove is 1 millimeter wide and sitting underneath the ball, that ball is on the ground.
Your understanding of camera angles is very poor. While it seems like there's only 1 mm between the ball and the ground, that is not so. Anyways, arguing with you is tiresome. An ambiguous call is a bad call. Ball in dirt, ball caught by catcher, whatever. Doesn't matter. Bad call by the umpire.
I am still not convinced that Eddings got this call right. I took a course in college on officiating and even though it was more about the rules of basketball, there were some principles you can apply to other sports if you are an official or umpire. One is selling your call. Eddings' strike and out motion was too confusing, at best, and that is why this play will still be talked about for who knows how long. Even if he made the wrong call and had not been so confusing with his out motion, then this call doesn't get all this attention and notoriety. And twhy - I am like everyone else here in that I have not played major league baseball; I can only go by what I see go on in the games and what I read. And what I read is that it is customary for the umpire in that situation to say "no catch, no catch". Does customary mean "100% of the time"? Of course not, but it is like you getting in an automobile and not having an accident - can you say 100% of the time that nothing will happen? You cannot but more than likely, nothing will happen. This was just one of those fluke times where the umpire froze up and forgot to do that. So you can spare me the amateur Matlock schtick.
Just went to ESPN's website - what I had talked about in my last post about Eddings not selling the call...guess what? He admits that he didn't do a good job of selling the call (like no duh!) Umpire: I Should Have Made Stronger Call NEW YORK -- Given another chance, umpire Doug Eddings said he would've been more emphatic in making the call that helped the Chicago White Sox win Game 2 of the American League Championship Series. If he could do it over, Doug Eddings says he would have made this call more forecfully. "The only thing I'm down on myself is I should have sold it either way," Eddings told The New York Times for a story posted on its Web site Thursday night, a day after Chicago beat the Los Angeles Angels 2-1 to pull even in the best-of-seven series. "I should have either said, 'No catch,' or, if I did have a catch, that he was out. Which I never said: 'He's out,' " Eddings said. Eddings was escorted by two Orange County sheriffs and a Major League Baseball security officer as he exited the flight from Chicago, the newspaper said. White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski struck out swinging with two outs in the bottom of the ninth Wednesday night, but he hustled to first and was safe because Eddings ruled the pitch was not gloved cleanly. Thinking the inning was over, Angels catcher Josh Paul had rolled the ball to the mound with the Angels already coming off the field. Eddings' call stood and Pierzynski scored the winning run on Joe Crede's double. Eddings told the newspaper that he planned to change his style to more clearly reflect the difference between calling a strike and calling a batter out. Plate umpires are trained to shout "No catch!" or indicate that the ball is in play after a swinging strike; Eddings, who has maintained that he was right in saying the ball hit the dirt before Paul gloved it, was silent. Mike Port, baseball's vice president of umpiring, told The Associated Press on Thursday that Eddings did nothing wrong and that umpires are not required to audibly call "No catch." url: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2005/news/story?id=2190652 Even though what Mike Port says is highly confusing to me (if they don't have to audibly say it then why are they "trained" to say it?), it is good to see that Eddings admit that he didn't sell this call. Too bad that his freezing up possibly (key word being possibly, people) cost the Angels a game.
I saw the incident today and they WERE NOT robbed. The fact is a simply, routine tag by the catcher would have ended this. Yeah the call wasnt great.....but the play by the Angels was stupid at such a critical time.
That's what it boils down to for me. Nearly every game, there's a strike three either in the dirt or close and 99% of the time you see the catcher tag the batter just to be sure. All this talk about the umps out call or whatever doesn't matter. The catcher was already running back and throwing the ball to the mound before the ump made the call. You can argue that he should've sold his call better, but I don't think it would've matter. A catcher tying up all loose ends would've ended this controversy. Now, we'll have to listen to it for days upon days.
i'm just hoping the ALCS ends in 6....so they'll be done Tuesday...so that Wednesday's game 6 in the NLCS won't be at freaking 3 in the afternoon!!! having said that...i agree wholeheartedly the catcher should have tagged the guy. but when the ump emphatically (and seeing it again last night, that's the best way to describe it) called the guy out...the infield could justifiably have run off the field. including the first baseman. leaving no one there to catch the ball at first had the catcher thrown down.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they were already running off the field when he made the call. Especially the catcher.
the catcher definitely was. in this instance my hypo doesn't work...because the catcher made no effort to throw down. but imagine if he had. the ump calls the batter out. and he starts running. but everyone else is running off the field. then there's no first baseman to throw to. because they all relied on the ump to do his job...make the call...and stand behind it. he didn't. in fact, in his post-game comments he said something about watching the runner go and that affecting his call. that's crap. your call was made.
I agree with Max. It could very well be that the right call was made (although I still think that ball never hit the ground) but the umpire's "unsureness" (is that even a word?) is what makes this play so talked about. He even admitted that he screwed up in that regard. Maybe I am crazy, but that whole sequence of events left me with no confidence that Eddings knows what he is doing. And when you don't sell your call or calls, players and fans get the impression, right or wrong, that you don't know what you are doing out there. It is just human nature.
Haha, somehow I expected that. Well let's just say that the perception or impression is one of that he doesn't know what he is doing and of course, being one of baseball's best umpires (supposedly) makes his "non-sell" of that call even more shocking.
Manny, seriously speaking, what else did you learn... rather, what else do they teach at the officiating class you took? I am wondering if anything SOCCER-related was in there. But please offer more information whether soccer-related or not. Also, what is the official name of that class? It's good to point out that the "if the ball hits the ground" rule comes into play here. I always wondered why they instated this rule in the majors, and why the runner can keep running when the catcher drops the ball, I mean, if it makes sense, I would like to know why they extend the strikeout past the "you swung, you're out" rule. Alas, there are close calls in EVERY major sport. "Wha..Yeh... Nuh... I don't like confrontations!" - [name the movie]
