Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:
Originally posted by rbmartin
To me, whether or not the ball was in the dirt is irrelevant. ThatÂ’s a judgment which I cannot fault a PU (without the benefit of replay) for missing.
What is relevant is the fact that the PU did not respect HIS OWN CALL.
How can any official expect game participants and fans to respect his authority if he himself does not respect his own judgment (as demonstrated by the fact that he changed his mind on a call that he had clearly and correctly made)?
|
What are you talking about? He IMMEDIATELY signaled that the ball was in play with his right hand extended out and then he signaled a swinging strike, NOT an out. As the BR headed for first, Eddings trailed him up the line. He knew what he had called.
|
The extended right arm is a "the ball is in play" signal?
Really?
That's a new one on me.
His strike mechanic is flawed and it probably hasn't caused him any difficulty UNTIL NOW.
Having said that, the catcher screwed up. Also, the catcher's actions were never based on anything he saw from Eddings because the catcher never looked. So WHAT Eddings signaled and HOW the catcher may have interpreted (or MISinterpreted) it is really a specious argument.
If the catcher had simply done his job it wouldn't have mattered WHAT Eddings signaled and it wouldn't have mattered WHETHER Eddings was right or wrong. A simple tag ends the whole issue and we wouldn't be talking about it had he done that.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
I thought the best question of the press conference was the question whether Eddings had ever been criticized for his mechanic, and he said exactly that -- not until tonight. Tonight's game is going to be interesting -- I bet you see every single catcher tag every batter on strike three -- even if the ball is caught belt high. I also suspect the hammer strike mechanic is all but extinct for this year's ALCS.
From the replay, it looked to me as though Paul was flipping the ball back to the mound even before Eddings gave the hammer. So I think you're exactly right. Clearly, Eddings didn't say "out" -- not even Paul is suggesting that, and from Eddings' manner, it looks like he had his call all along. I guess one thing I wasn't watching for on the replay that would matter, though, is whether the pitcher or first baseman relied on the mechanic to vacate the mound or the 1B position. Didn't watch for that on the replay, and if I remember the play right, getting AJ was really a long shot.
I still don't think there's been enough discussion, though, about a point made above -- that Eddings apparently waited until after a tag in an earlier similar situation in the game to give the hammer. (Or, more probably, it just looked like that since he takes so long before he gives his swining strike signal.) I didn't see this replay, though.
My favorite talk radio point this morning was a very extended discussion about the notion that if that play is "close," it needs to be called an out. That's, apparently, the "fair" thing for the Angels. I guess I see some intuitive sense in that, since the batter did commit strike 3. But why is there never any discussion about whether it's "fair" to take a player off first base who deserves to be there under the rules?