Controversy Thread

For the record

I thought they blew the call at first.

When they showed the closeups though it appeared as if they may have gotten it right. -- I'd need to see a couple more replays with it zoomed in. (I'm sure we'll see plenty of them on SC tonight)

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 12, 2005 10:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not convinced it didn't hit the ground

...but it was caught.

I think the Angels should be blaming Paul and not the ump. He's a vet, he should know to tag the batter ANYWAY...it's Paul's fault he didn't. And smart thinking by AJ to capitalize on it...

by hiphopnerd on Oct 12, 2005 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What an appropriate name

for a White Sox fan. "The Cheat."

by Thieves on Oct 12, 2005 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kind of weak for a guy named thieves, don't you think? Cheat says the ump blew the call., That's baseball and it's not like he took the game away; after all the Angels had only about a 40% chance of winning

alia iacta est - win now

by dyspeptic on Oct 12, 2005 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Go troll somewhere else.

How exactly can you place any blame on any White Sox for the umps decision? AJ realized he didn't get tagged, and took off for first...he doesn't make the safe/out call.

by hiphopnerd on Oct 12, 2005 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He Gone!

Oh, and I'm sure there will be more. Just ignore them until I have the time to properly take care of them.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 12, 2005 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't know

You could kick us out. Please give me a chance to repent for drunken comments, if you ever feel that way.

The Doctor has spoken

by drzorba on Oct 13, 2005 1:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As a non sox fan (aka cubs fan)

I think it bounced. I have the close up replay Tivoed and watched it 10 times or so after the game ended. The ball is low to the ground and the next frame it is up higher in the pocket. I think it bounced.

Whether it bounced or not Pierzinski won that battle. Bottom of the 9th ALCS if you are the catcher and it's that close you tag the runner.

My only argument would be if the umpire actually said "out". If he said "out" then the Angels are in the right tossing the ball to the mound and walking to the dugout.

Lastly if you noticed the umpire made that same "out" gesture McCarver was singleing out on the strike 2 ball to Crede and he meant it as a strike. I didn't go back earlier in the game to see if he was using it for strikes before the controversy but he at least made a case for it there.

Grats sox fans for making it 1-1

by JonH on Oct 12, 2005 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

my understanding is

if it bounces and the catcher catches it cleanly it is a putout. but only after the ump calls it so. Was he using the same sign for a strike as an out tonight

alia iacta est - win now

by dyspeptic on Oct 12, 2005 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Official rule

6.05
A batter is out when (a) his fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder; (b) a third strike is legally caught by the catcher; "legally caught" means in the catcher's glove before the ball touches the ground.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse http://thepicks.blogspot.com <- my NFL and NCAA picks.

by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 13, 2005 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

alia iacta est - win now

by dyspeptic on Oct 13, 2005 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I think it bounced. I have the close up replay Tivoed and watched it 10 times or so after the game ended. The ball is low to the ground and the next frame it is up higher in the pocket. I think it bounced.

That's what I thought.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 12, 2005 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My last thought is....

Even if baseball had instant replay(which I would be violently against), even if they had it I don't think that replay would be indisputable evidence to overturn it like the NFL says it needs.

by JonH on Oct 12, 2005 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jon, I saw the same thing

Moreover, the ball was rolling on the grass after the point to first base and before he made the strike gesture. Paul just didn't look.

by dbt on Oct 12, 2005 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As John Kruk has said

Whether the ump made a "strike" or "Out" gesture, Josh paul was not looking at him. He did not hesitate to roll the ball back. He should have turned looked at the ump, tagged the runner, throw down to 1st. ANYTHING. But no

That ball bounced, its clear.

AIM: JoeCoolMan24 www.2ksports.com/forums Thats where i spend most of my day

by JoeCoolMan24 on Oct 13, 2005 6:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

look at the Angel position players. They've started running off before the infamous fist-pump. The umpire's call is far from clear, but it's clear that they weren't going just on that.

-Peder

by Peder on Oct 13, 2005 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

...they were reacting to Paul I think. In fact, I'm inclined to think the fist pump was a reaction to Paul too, and Eddings had no clear idea if the ball was caught or not.

by hitlesswonder on Oct 13, 2005 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep the blew it.

But they also blew the call on Crede at second base. And that could have been just as big. Umpires make mistakes. And, shades of Bartman, if the Angels just get the next out it doesn't matter.

-Peder

by Peder on Oct 12, 2005 10:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

it was an out

clear and simple. The Angels got hosed on that call, Momentum shifted and they didn't record the final out.

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Oct 12, 2005 10:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Look...

I'll be honest. This win doesn't feel quite right.

But I'm also not going to go and say we 'stole' the game. Ozuna still had to steal second, and Crede still had to hit the pitch by Escobar -- which, by the way, was terrible. A hanger, and Crede hit it.

I also want to say thanks to Mark Buehrle. He's not going to get enough credit in this win, but man -- what a performance. Keep up the pitching in Anahiem, Freddy and Jon!

by CWSKeith on Oct 12, 2005 10:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree with this

Normally after a win, I feel great, or at worst, extremely relieved.

Now, I just feel kind of stunned.

by JasonC23 on Oct 12, 2005 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it bounced,

but it hit in the web, which was laying on the ground, and bounced up higher into the mitt. Watch the replays--there are no puffs of dirt as it enters the mitt. As dyspeptic has noted, that's a putout.

Not that every other freaking team in the league would not have taken advantage of that situation if they could. There was nothing dirty about it--AJ put the pressure on the umps to make a call, and they made it a mistake. Look at blue for this, not the Sox.

by beeramid on Oct 12, 2005 11:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Of course there is nothing dirty

No one is implying that there was something dirty about it. It was a great play by A.J. to run to first, kudos to him. What I can't figure out is why he would run to first when the umpire called him "out".

Anyway, I just came by to see what the Sox fans are saying about a very strange play. It is good to see that about half of you are honest about it and don't feel good about winning that way. Bottom line is there is no way the replay shows conclusively one way or the other. What is conclusive is that the ump signaled "out". Crede saw it and went to the dugout, the Angels saw it and went to the dugout, AMERICA saw it, and went for a snack. Weird.

Anyway, awesome pitching by your guy. Here's to a great series!

by Dodger Hater on Oct 12, 2005 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You haven't

been getting the emails I have! :)

And salud to you re: a great series.

by beeramid on Oct 12, 2005 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The press conference

Major League Baseball reviewed it, they blew it up and said that the ball changed direction.

Pierzynski said he didn't hear a verbal call out, he made a heads up play and that's that.

Furthermore, Josh Paul should have just tagged him out, you always do that when it's close. He's the backup catcher and his head wasn't in the game.

Tom in NJ

South Side Pride

by Tom in NJ on Oct 12, 2005 11:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Aren't the umpiring crews supposed to be the best?

I'm just sayin'...

by gjdow on Oct 12, 2005 11:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

well, regardless...

lets not forget this:

a) If he is called out, Angels don't win...they just go to the 10th.
b) Ozuna stole 2nd
c) Crede hit a game winning RBI

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Oct 12, 2005 11:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely correct

The Angels needed to play well enough to overcome something like that. Can't fault your sox for taking advantage of the gift.

by Dodger Hater on Oct 12, 2005 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure the umpire signalled out

But, who here hasn't seen a play where an umpire initially signals out and then quickly changes his call? They just showed a play on ESPN from last year when AJ was on the Giants and the umpire originally signalled out but then indicated that the ball was still live and the runner was able to take first base. The ump is allowed to change the call immediately. Secondly, why was AJ running at all? If the umpire had actually verbally said "out," there'd be no reason for AJ to be running. Obviously, the verbal out call was never made. Thirdly, there's no way Paul could have seen the ump's "out" call anyway, and if he didn't hear it either, it's on him to finish off the play.

Finally, there's no reason to feel bad about this win. And no reason to worry about people calling bullshit if we win the series. The only people doing that would be Angels fans. I'm sure some Orioles fans are still bitching about Jeffrey Maier's fan interference, but the general consensus is that the Yankees win still counts. Ditto Livan Hernandez's 3-foot wide strikezone when the Marlins won their first series and Don Denkinger's blown call in the 1985 World Series. Do you think fans of those teams were even the slightest bit disappointed when their teams won the World Series because they thought it was tainted by a bad call (and, frankly, I think the ump actually got this call right, just signalled it weirdly)? No way. If the White Sox go on to win the World Series, will you honestly think to yourself, "Damn, if only we hadn't won game 2 of the ALCS on a questionable call"? Hell no! You'll be jumping up and down screaming with joy like the rest of us.

If the Sox don't win the series, the play is forgotten forever. It they do, it's nothing more than a minor footnote. So be happy Sox fans. We won!

by Ryno on Oct 12, 2005 11:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Irrelevant to this play

But, who here hasn't seen a play where an umpire initially signals out and then quickly changes his call?

One, you never see Eddings distinctively change his call. In the plays you describe, it's usually a fielder pulled off a bag, or a dropped ball, and the umpire immediately reverses his signal. Eddings did no such thing.

And you shouldn't feel bad about this win. You won. Umps are part of the game. If it goes the other way, and there were similar issues against the Yankees, I'd take it too.

by LA Seitz on Oct 12, 2005 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This controversy has already been overplayed

The media loves this type of controversy. There is no controversy if Escobar does not leave a hanger up there to Joe Crede. The game would have gone to extras. If he had gotten out, the White Sox still would have had an excellent chance to win the game.

by MRKARNO on Oct 12, 2005 11:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not here to troll, seriously

The call at second on Crede was the right call. Slow it down and watch frame for frame. It was bang-bang, but he was out.
The strike out of Konerko on the check swing was a bad call. He didn't go. And worse, he not only called him out, he rung him up. I don't know how he could be so sure of a call he missed so badly.

THE Call

It did not hit the ground. It the leather in the webbing and stayed up, which is why it appeared higher.
Paul did not toss the ball until the strike call was made. He MAY have done it before the out call. Tough to tell from the video, but it looked like he tossed it while Eddings was making the out motion (before he completed it). Regardless, it's not just Paul who relies on that call, but the fielders as well. Escobar could have been in position to make that play
Umps NEVER make the out sign before the catcher tags the runner in that situation unless they're sure he's out.
Catchers NEVER fail to tag the runner if they think there's a chance it will be ruled a drop. Obviously, three and four are circumstancial.
Umps occasionally check the ball for shoe polish when a batter claims he was hit on the foot. Why couldn't they have checked the ball for a scuff mark? EVERY ball that hits the dirt is taken out of play these days. If they can see those scuff marks well enough to pull a ball out of play, why not check the ball?

Anyway, great game. Them's the breaks. That's why we all watch. It won't be the last disputed call, I'm sure. I just hope this series is decided by Vlad, Paulie, Frankie, Jenks, Figgins, and Scotty P, and NOT the men in blue.

by LA Seitz on Oct 12, 2005 11:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And #6

From a comment at my site:
From MLB Rule 9.05 (concerning umpires):

"Wait until the play is completed before making any arm motion."

Eddings signaled out. That should have been the end of the play.

Anyway, Cheat, thanks for the links and the traffic.

by LA Seitz on Oct 12, 2005 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is significant that it was AJ

and not somebody else. Watching the highlights of the game, there were several instances when the catcherrs from both teams tagged batters after third strikes. Like all umpires, this one had a rhythm to how he would call strike three and then batter out. Paul had come in the inning before and apparently wasn't aware of this tendencies But catchers depend upon hearing not signals; they can't see the signals. The ump didn't orally call the batter out: that is what was lacking.

Pierzinski heard strike three and then didn't hear 'batter's out' or whatever. He started running.

If you want a bad guy in this thing, look at the major leagues who allow umpires to put their own style and flourishes into their calls

alia iacta est - win now

by dyspeptic on Oct 13, 2005 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eddings and his hand signal

Eddings's hand motion on That Strike Three was also the same motion he used to signal strikes one and two all night long. It's not preposterous to assume that this is also how he calls dropped strikes three, is it?

by Not Brian Crawford on Oct 13, 2005 12:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's what Eddings is saying

That the motion everyone is calling his "out" signal is actually just him calling strike three. ESPN is breaking it down and showing that he used that hand signal to indicate "strike" all night.

by Ryno on Oct 13, 2005 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A big thing

Let's just say, theoretically that the following play were to occur:

1-2 count, two outs, bottom of the ninth, runner on first. The pitch appears to be a strike, and the second baseman and shortstop walk back to the dugout. The ump mistakenly calls it a ball and the runner advances to second.

Even if the ump were wrong, who is at fault here? Of course you'd say the infielders, right?

How is this play any different. Even if Josh Paul did field it correctly, and the umpire was mistaken, isn't it the catcher's fault? There was nothing wrong with the procedure here (the 'out' call was his 'strike' motion). He never called AJ out, just motioned for 'no contact, strike three'.

So, assuming the ump made the wrong call (I don't think the video is conclusive either way), wouldn't it be fair to say that the burden for this lies on the Angels?

Anybody have any opinions about this?

It's just too bad the media is going to blow this out of proportion. Blaming the ump for this Angels loss is like blaming Bartman for the Cubs not making the World Series. It's completely wrong, but it's a much easier story.

by generico12 on Oct 13, 2005 12:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't agree more

-Peder

by Peder on Oct 13, 2005 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just posted above but yes

This whole hand signals thing is BS (to quote Hawk) because catchers because catchers can't see them. So if he rolls the ball out there before he hears batter out, he's the goat

alia iacta est - win now

by dyspeptic on Oct 13, 2005 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forgive the fatalism, but...

New prediction: An angry Angels team reels of 3 straight wins in Anaheim, and the Curse of A.J. Pierzynski is born!

It would be just like the White Sox to have a curse no one could spell.

by myihuiwu on Oct 13, 2005 5:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

FOX talks enough about White Sox curses, I really don't have to see it here to, do I?

by CWSKeith on Oct 13, 2005 8:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

was just joking...

Yah, that's what I was thinking of -- the constant FOX curse-talk.

Thought I was being oh-so-funny, but instead, I've been lumped in with Buck and McCarver. Now THAT's a reason to slit one's wrists!

Anyway, even as a CWS fan, I feel absolutely robbed of the opportunity to see Buehrle and F. Rodriguez take the mound in the 10th -- last night had the makings of an epic game.

by myihuiwu on Oct 13, 2005 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I for one..

feel awful for Mark. His great pitching is just a footnote in the "Eddings Game" This reminds me so much of "the Bartman Game" in everyones ability to ignore the fact that the call didn't end the game.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse http://thepicks.blogspot.com <- my NFL and NCAA picks.

by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 13, 2005 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep

Anyway, even as a CWS fan, I feel absolutely robbed of the opportunity to see Buehrle and F. Rodriguez take the mound in the 10th -- last night had the makings of an epic game.

This was my main point from the thread above. Mark Buehrle was about to have a historic game. You just don't see starting pitchers in the 10th anymore, especially in the playoffs.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 13, 2005 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is a shame...

...it would been awesome to see that happen. Plus, as someone mentioned, a long extra inning game would have been great (as long as the Sox would have won it). Tiring out the Angels bullpen, and getting the Sox pen some work, would have been a good thing.

by hitlesswonder on Oct 13, 2005 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are all wrong about Curses

Cheat has it right. Go see the new thread with the cartoon.

Shoeless Joe is with us, sending us powerful and untouchable mojo.

Forget everything else. This takes the pressure off and propels the Sox forward, with everyone else focusing on irrelevant crap in the past.

Say it is so!

by spengler on Oct 13, 2005 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The tag

If this has already been mentioned I apologize. In looking at the replay it looks like AJ is not making a move to walk back to the dugout, but is trying to avoid what he thought would be the inevitable tag from the catcher. When that didn't happen he turns and runs to first. People have questioned why he immediately took steps toward the dugout.

"It is designed to break your heart." A. Bartlett Giamatti

by Sullysox on Oct 14, 2005 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i agree with that view

i've made a page "csi: chicago" style with some frames from the game.

http://home.comcast.net/~captain-nobody/aj/ajindex.html

by cnobody on Oct 14, 2005 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

good work

I think the most important image is the fact that Paul is throwing the ball on the field (while the angels are jogging off) while Eddings is making his signal.

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Oct 14, 2005 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs