Yanks/Tribe...Did it hit the bat?...commentator comments?
 

I had a foul ball here...what did the rest of you have prior to the replays. Also...am I correct in hearing one of the commentators say that if he wasn't offering at the pitch and it hit him in the hand...that would make a difference?? I don't think that was a correct statement...are we surprised?

I was just waiting for "hands are part of the bat" to come out. haha!

Looked to me like it hit the hand, then the bat. However this was a VERY close call.

Hmmm......

To me, it seemed obvious watching live that the pitch hit the bat, not the batter's hand(s). I found the video conclusive that it was so. But, that's just how I saw it.

I found it kind of funny that they brought in the LF & RF Umps in for the ensuing confab.

Ohhh,

And how about the CI that Matsui is claiming?

JM

good point...the LF and RF umpires chiming in on that one...great...now that's two more umpires that the coach can say..."hey, ask your partner..."I don't think I'll ever work a game that has 6 umps...so I won't have to worry about it...I suppose it's something to do with it being a "crew" conversation...Tough call for the PU...I don't think either team could've argued too much either way. No breaks for the pin stripes as of yet...

What is incorrect about the statement?
If the batter swings at a pitch and the ball hits his hand it is a strike.

If he tries to bunt the ball and the ball hits his hand it is a strike.

If he pulls back from the pitch and the ball hits his hand it is a hit batsman.
And the replays clearly showed that is just what happened.

Obviously after all 6 umpires chimed in none saw any evidence that the batter was in the act of swinging at the ball.

T

I see what you're saying...and that makes sense...I was looking at it as "the hands are part of the bat" argument...which obviously is wrong...your post makes more sense.

If he wasn't swinging and the pitch hit his hand first then yes, it makes a difference.

From the replay he was clearly not swinging (offering) so the question is whether it hit hand first or bat first.

Watching it live I thought it hit his bat, but looking at the replay I appears it got his hand. I think they got it right...

Not convinced 100% on that one. It does appear they got it right - too close for slow mo to pick up on the angles they showed -so I'll go with it. I had a foul ball to start with.

On the CI - Matsui clearly hit the mitt - I thought it was obvious in the replay.

I thought it hit his hand. The sound it made was that sickening bone sound more than a wood sound. His hand was also reddened when they showed the close up. I only saw a couple of replays.

He definitely did not offer at the pitch, which is what I thought the argument was about to begin with. I didn't even question whether he was hit or not.

I say that they made the right call. Hit batsman awarded first base.

I thought without question it hit the bat. But that was after the super slow-motion replay that I saw about 5 times before I was sure. That does not mean I am right, but that is what I saw. And the sound of the bat would have likely made me think the bat was hit and not his hand.

Peace

Sounded like hand to me. But I only heard it live and then once on replay. I could be wrong.

The bottom line is that the umpires had one shot at it and ruled the way they did. They don't go watch slo-mo replays thankfully.

Based on the replay, his hand did not look like it was that close to where the ball hit the bat. Without a doubt the ball at some point hit the bat. That was obvious in the replay, but I think the hand could have been hit first. I think it would have been a stretch to say it hit the hand. Then again I have a HDTV and the replay was very good for this play.

Peace

I have no idea how they ruled on the field, nor do I care, but didn't someone here once post a story about how one of the umpire school instructors interrupted a question with the blanket, "It hit the hand first."?

You're a genius. When an announcer is right, and you're not, hang em up.