has anyone been listening to espn radio today? first, the colin cowherd show, and now the dan patrick show. i have been listening all morning and this is all they have been talking about along with the minnesota vikings boat charter extravaganza.

I had ESPN radio on an hour after the game last night, it was all they talked about. Jim Rome first thing this morning, all he talked about for first 30 minutes, so I switched to ESPN radio, and now I'm tired of Dan Patrick re-hashing it. I'll probably tune in to Papa Joe this afternoon and get tired of it again.

Re: Re: Re: Exactly
 

Thanks Carl, you said it much better than I could have,

... and it surely hasn't hurt my post season prospects, state finals two years running.

Must be something in the water in PA?

Thanks
David

I too was initially confused by this post, then I thought about it for a few minutes. I think he meant it was lucky that he happened to be in Chicago for this game, and not in St. Louis, observing that game. Does that help?

Your looking at the wrong replay !
 

Everyone is talking about the replays, and what they show. The problem is, we need a replay that shows what the ‘Umpire’ saw, not what the center field camera saw. Look at a replay from the Umpire’s viewpoint 30 times, and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the call ?

I watched the endless replays last night, and my opinion is that the ball DID NOT hit the dirt. But the umpire thought it hit the dirt, so it is a Third Strike Not Caught…Period.

I think the catcher, also believing he caught the ball cleanly, didn’t even think about tagging the runner. Although, a more experienced catcher may have realized that an umpire, looking at a low catch from behind him, ‘could’ have thought it was a trap, and would tag the runner just to be safe. There’s something to be said for experience.

Lastly, I don’t think the umpire’s first physical motions have that big of an effect on this type of play. His verbal calls are more important. The catcher, and the batter are not looking at the umpire. By the time they do, all the motions are over with anyway. The only signal that matters is the last one, and it should be held until the play develops. I only work HS, and in my association, for a Third Strike Not Caught [TSNC] (not a Dropped Strike Three DST), we say “Strike 3” and hold our right fist up above our head to indicate the ball was not caught. We hold it there until the runner starts running, or the catcher tags the runner. Then, we signal the outcome of the play. In any case, I think a physical signal needs to be held to indicate the situation, whatever it is.

I do think the Plate Umpire’s signals were very confusing for those who can see them. He pointed out to the side to indicate a strike (so I thought), and then hammered to the front for an out (again, what I thought). I use a low, extended hammer to indicate strikes, and a traditional hammer to indicate outs. No one has ever mistaken my signals, because they are different enough. It is always best to have a forward facing strike signal at any level. Just because there was a strike, that doesn’t remove our responsibility to keep our eye on the ball / play.

Nick,

I would have expected your post to run along the following lines:

"If Eddings had been wearing a helmet, he would have had a better view of the catch and made the right call."

Thread Summary
 

I think basically we can all agree that from a replay the ball was cleanly caught.They just blew the call.

Another thing we can all agree on was Eddings bad judgment on his mechanics. He should have been more emphatic in his no catch call or at least not signaled out. He blew it.

Next, I am very disappointed in Eddings and Rieker's waffling of the call afterward. They should have been man enough to say they blew it. You cannot tell me this replay was inconclusive.

I think everyone - especially the teams and media - need to move on. This is why it is a seven game series and not a one game series. Eddings and his crew blew it, and unfortunalty they were not men enough to admit it. But that is no reason to throw in the towel for the Angels- they still have 5 games left to win the series.

That is my two cents on this matter.

Re: Thread Summary
 

A summary summarizes all points presented, not just one persons opinion.

If that's your two cents, you have change coming.

ROTFL.....zing!!! :D

It's all in the peripheral vision, bay-bee!

Indeed, Rich. Comcast here showed a close-up shot even closer in than FOX's shot, and this newer view shows the ball hitting the ground.

Re: Thread Summary
 

Uh, no, we can't all agree, because one replay view did, in fact, show the ball hitting the dirt.

<b>I think basically we can all agree that from a replay the ball was cleanly caught.</b>

I thought so until I saw the slow motion replay. The ball may well have hit dirt, as it appears to rise slightly into the mitt. The problem is the straight-on angle. Is the ball moving within the glove, or did it enter the space of the glove but catch dirt before hitting leather? The side angle is inconclusive. We'll never know for certain, though I suspect that highly sophisticated photographic analysis could tell.

From the <i>New York Times:</i>

[Catcher Josh] Paul said an umpire usually hollers "no catch" when a ball hits the dirt, but that Eddings said nothing.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eddings admitted that he pumped his fist, but said that was his mechanism for signaling a swinging third strike. . . . Eddings acknowledged that he did not say "no catch."

Re: What about...
 

Perhaps a better choice of words would be "a smarter catcher would have tagged him". I'll bet Molina would have tagged him! Just because he's a major league catcher, doesn't mean he always uses his head.

Angels fans should stop blaming the umpire, since they had many chances to win on their own. Nobody forced Escobar to serve up that 0-2 pitch to Crede!

Trap
 

I definitely saw this on the replay, after really getting a good take on this situation this evening on sports center, which emphasized this for at least ten minutes. I saw the ball take a slight change of direction off the ground, following a semi-trap by the catcher. GOOD CALL.

Bottom line here guys, we have a 7 yr veteran catcher that has only appeared in 228 games. Meaning he has only played about 25% of his career, and now we know why!!!! If he was really that good and heads up, he would have sold that call to the umpire. All the GOOD catchers do. Hell, even the media knew that during the umpires questioning, and they no less about the game then Paul.????????????