Finally, a non-umpire bashing article

[LMan]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...lay/index.html

[mbyron]

That's a good article, but I wish he had pointed out not only THAT replay is not a live option, but WHY it is not. Sure, the owners aren't talking about it, but you might read this article and come away with the impression that they are just foolish, obstinate, stick-in-the-mud traditionalists. In fact, there are good reasons to exclude replay.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It looked to me like the author managed to get in a dig against Phil Cuzzi, in saying he should have held a press conference to explain his ejections of two rats. If it had been me who ejected Pixie and Dixie, I would have given a brief statement saying that the rats got personal, and had to go. End of press conference. Since when do umpires need the blessing of the media to do their jobs?

Just my (as always) humble opinion.

[Sal Giaco]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
It looked to me like the author managed to get in a dig against Phil Cuzzi, in saying he should have held a press conference to explain his ejections of two rats. If it had been me who ejected Pixie and Dixie, I would have given a brief statement saying that the rats got personal, and had to go. End of press conference. Since when do umpires need the blessing of the media to do their jobs?

I thought MLB cleared that up by saying there was no need for Cuzzi to appear at the press conference because the ejection was routine (ie. did not involve a rule interpretation or a contraversial play/call).

The beauty about pro ball is that if a player mother f*ck's you, you can mother f*ck them right back or get rid of them (some umpires do both). Unfortuneately, in NCAA ball, that's not the case. A Head Coach can "undress" you but you can't say anything back - you have to toss him and walk away. That's horsesh!t. Just my opinion

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

You can, but you have to be careful picking your shots.

Sometimes there is something rather pleasurable in saying, "Are you done?"

No.

"Now you are." and walking away.

For those of us who are VERY married, this is about the only time we can do this!

(What? No honey, I'm not talking about you on the internet again. Okay, I'll be right there. I've got to go guys.)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Has anyone looked that the picture that accompanies the Sports Illustrated article that begins this thread. I will to bet dollars to donuts that if we could have seen the entire pitch from this photographer's position, we would have seen an uncaught third strike.

MTD, Sr.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Has anyone looked that the picture that accompanies the Sports Illustrated article that begins this thread. I will to bet dollars to donuts that if we could have seen the entire pitch from this photographer's position, we would have seen an uncaught third strike.

MTD, Sr.

Yeah, and even if it didn't, I still say it was way too close to hitting the ground for the stupid catcher not to tag A.J., just in case.

[BigUmp56]

I'll always believe that although Edding's mechanic sucked, he got the call right. This is the best pic I've seen to show that the ball was uncaught.

Tim.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

I'll always believe that although Edding's mechanic sucked, he got the call right. This is the best pic I've seen to show that the ball was uncaught.

Tim.

How can this picture possibly show that the ball was "uncaught"? . It shows the ball before it hit the ground or the mitt. This particular picture doesn't prove a thing- one way or another.

[BigUmp56]

JR,

I know it's rather subjective of me to say that. I think by looking at the downward trajectory of the ball as it relates to the distance of the ball to the webbing of the mitt, along with the space between the ball and the dirt, there is enough evidence, at least for me, to form a logical opinion that suggests the ball was uncaught.

Of course, this is an opinion, and you know what they say those are like!


Tim.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Of course, this is an opinion, and you know what they say those are like.

Well, Tim, my opinion is that I personally still can't form any kind of opinion based on that particular picture.

Even if there was a still picture showing the ball actually in the glove, you still wouldn't know if it had bounced first or not. The only real definitive still picture imo would be a picture showing the ball actually touching the ground before it entered the mitt. I haven't seen one of those anywhere and I haven't heard of one existing either.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I understand that the Comcast replay does show the ball hitting the ground. I was not privy to this replay, but I am sure others were. Is this correct? Does it show proof of an uncaught third strike?

[Sal Giaco]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Has anyone looked that the picture that accompanies the Sports Illustrated article that begins this thread. I will to bet dollars to donuts that if we could have seen the entire pitch from this photographer's position, we would have seen an uncaught third strike.

I think you guys are missing the point here. Again, not to beat a dead horse, but whether or not the pitch was caught is NOT the issue. A poor mechanic was the cause of the entire fiasco. If Eddings reacts the way he is supposed to on a potential third strike not legally caught, the whole contraversy never occurs. Close plays will always be a part of sports - the key is how they are handled by the officials. I'm sure Eddings will make some adjustments next year.

[Edited by Sal Giaco on Nov 18th, 2005 at 07:39 AM]

[LMan]

nice hijack......*sigh* Havent yall beaten Eddings' call to death enough in its own thread?