Yankees @ Angels - Game 5 ALDS

[umpandy]

I say good call.

You make your own "frame-by-frame" judgement as you wish (click the link below).

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...news&fext=.jsp

[mrm21711]

I think its quite obvious his right foot is not entirely on the line when he was hit with the ball.

[johnSandlin]

I finally just saw the replay. Anyway you look at, anyway you dice it, and anyway you slice it from every possible angle, that is an out and the correct call was made.

Joe West made the correct call. And another thing, for those of you who have very much disagreed with Joe West making this call in this kind of game or situation, that is why Joe West is where he is at with his career as an MLB umpire.

Good umpires step and make big calls in BIG situations. Those are the kind of people MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, and the NCAA want working at the top levels and working the playoff rounds, people that have big brass sets of b**** to make the big tough calls in big games.

Good Job Joe West!!

[rulesmaven]

Originally posted by johnSandlin
I finally just saw the replay. Anyway you look at, anyway you dice it, and anyway you slice it from every possible angle, that is an out and the correct call was made.

I've kind of been waiting for this post. No matter what replay I look at, I can't see a possible way that the BR was not out. Seems the only possible grounds for criticizing this play would be to talk about West's mechanics. I'm much more familiar with basketball mechanics than baseball, so I don't know what proper mechanics are with a ball behind the plate like that. If I had to guess, I'd think that call is all about angle not distance -- and West was plainly moving in the one reply on espn.com to get an up the line angle, so if my guess is right there's nothing to criticize about mechanics.

The BR on the play had two choices: (1) run in the lane, or (2) don't run in the lane and hope. He chose number 2. He chose incorrectly. He's out.

As for whether that was an "appropriate" time and place to make the call, is that even something worth talking about? What could possibly be more inappropriate than incorrectly loading the bases in a deciding playoff game?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by mrm21711
I think its quite obvious his right foot is not entirely on the line when he was hit with the ball.

Even if his right foot plowed the foul line chalk up, it takes both feet to be inside the lane, or on the line. One in and one out is how it looked to me. Good Call.

[DG]

See Braves@Astros Game3 thread where there is discussion about the balk call, the announcers who were clueless, but not much about whether it was a correct call.

Contrast to this thread where there is a lot of discussion about whether correct or not, with what looks like a near split in opinion.

I vote for bad call on the balk (although it did not make any difference since it was ball 4) and good call on the running lane violation, and yes I know these are major league umpires... so don't bother to remind me.

[David B]

Originally posted by DG
See Braves@Astros Game3 thread where there is discussion about the balk call, the announcers who were clueless, but not much about whether it was a correct call.

Contrast to this thread where there is a lot of discussion about whether correct or not, with what looks like a near split in opinion.

I vote for bad call on the balk (although it did not make any difference since it was ball 4) and good call on the running lane violation, and yes I know these are major league umpires... so don't bother to remind me.

Don't know who the other guys are but I think I made it quite clear that I watched the game, the replays, and the rest of the action and I thought it was a very good call.

Like it or not, F1 did balk and the umpire made the correct call by rule.

Must have missed my post.

Thanks
David

[DG]

Originally posted by David B

Don't know who the other guys are but I think I made it quite clear that I watched the game, the replays, and the rest of the action and I thought it was a very good call.

Like it or not, F1 did balk and the umpire made the correct call by rule.

Must have missed my post.

Thanks
David

What can I say? I saw a stop, live and on tape replay.

[UMP25]

My next door neighbor is a physicist and mathematician, and his analysis shows that your observation is incorrect.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by umpandy
I say good call.

You make your own "frame-by-frame" judgement as you wish (click the link below).

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...news&fext=.jsp

Everyone knows I'm a Yankee fan - and have been for nearly 60 years.

Three plays:

1. A-Rod is out for slapping the ball out of the fielder's glove. Umpire: Joe West (plate) Last year

2. Runner is safe at second on a force because Cano was not in contact with the base when in control of the ball. Umpire: Joe West (second)

3. Cano is out for being out of the running lane. Umpire: Joe West (plate)

Does any of that prove:

Joe doesn't like Cano?
Joe doesn't like Latinos?
Joe doesn't like the Yankees?
Joe doesn't like rule violations?

Could all four be correct? After all, they do call him Cowboy Joe West.

Remember, Joe has to make his decisions in real time, without benefit of instant replay or slow motion.

My take? Three out of three is pretty damned good.

1. The A-Rod call: Piece of cake if you have cojones. Obvious, unsportsmanlike action. And probably dumb as well. On A-Rod's part, I mean.

2. The Cano force play. We teach that an amateur umpire, who doesn't have to deal with instant replays from five different angles, should call the neighborhood play on force outs if the first play is part of a double play. But we also teach that if the first play is the only chance the defense has for an out, then the fielder must have control of the ball while touching the base. Joe clearly saw Cano off the bag, and he clearly called the runner safe, and the instant reply clearly backed him up, Joe Morgan's opinion notwithstanding.

3. Here's what I saw - and I've run the play many times - and here's what I know:

(a) Cano was NEVER completely inside the lane. Evans says such a runner is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to wheter he was in or out of the lane.

(b ) The throw looks pretty good, so the catcher is absolved from blame.

(c) Someone said that Cano HAD to veer toward the base because the base is in fair territory, but the running lane is in foul ground. True, but wrong. A runner in the lane must be allowed (except in the NCAA) to leave the lane to touch the base. He leaves the lane by veering to his LEFT. Cano, not being in the lane, had to veer toward his RIGHT to touch first. Look at the video: When he moves to his right, he PROVES he wasn't in the lane.

(d) The catcher was not very far to the left of the plate. The rule that says the runner may not run to the right of the lane is there for plays where the ball runs away from the catcher in foul territory and up the line. For example: If the catcher had been ten or fifteen feet away from the plate in foul territory, Cano's position vis a vis the throw would have been immaterial.

(e) Joe was out of position. The video shows him to the left of the line of the catcher's throw. Technically, he's supposed to be directly on the foul line. Since the throw got away slightly to foul territory to his right, a quick glance should have been enough to let him know he would not interfere by being on the first base foul line, slightly extended.

Based on the facts:

Joe was right every time.

Conclusion:

I hate Joe West.

[Kaliix]

With the small screen and no ability to frame by frame advance the video, the clip of the play is pretty useless to try and figure out the proper call.

Even in the clip you see of Cano, you guys can really see ground between Cano's feet and the line. I honestly don't think you can. When I frame by framed it on a 32" TV, I couldn't.

Oh well, that is fun of debating calls...

[mcrowder]

I promised to stop commenting, but after seeing the clip, and seeing others use this clip as evidence, I have to comment.

Not having the ability to freeze frame and zoom on the FIRST portion of the clip makes it impossible to get anything from this clip. The slowmo doesn't show his feet.

At home, right after the call, on a 63 inch HD TV, I replayed this frame by frame, and I stand by my commentary that he was not completely out of the lane until AFTER the ball went by. He hit chalk on 3 consecutive steps, but was not OUTSIDE the lane on any of those 3 steps.

[umpandy]

I don't quite understand why you can't obtain the information required from the video. It is (in a nutshell) what you would acquire from watching live television and slow motion replays. That is the same replay that was shown on television.

On that note, is it necessary for a frame by frame analysis in super slow motion when you can obtain identical information by replaying the video numerous times? I don't see the difference, but there may be one.

[DG]

Originally posted by UMP25
My next door neighbor is a physicist and mathematician, and his analysis shows that your observation is incorrect.

Does he know anything about baseball?

[LMan]

Originally posted by DG

Does he know anything about baseball?

He's probably as qualified as Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver