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

[johnnyg08]

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?

[bossman72]

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.

[UmpJM]

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

[johnnyg08]

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...

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?

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

[johnnyg08]

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?

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.

[tjones1]

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...

[ManInBlue]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[bob jenkins]

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."?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?

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