Joyce misses one

[johnnyg08]

Longtime Minneapolis sports writer Sid Hartman calls Jim Joyce a "Stupid imbecile."

Videos from Minneapolis, St. Paul, the Twin Cities area and Minnesota I StarTribune.com

Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. Easy to talk about umpiring from the press box.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Longtime Minneapolis sports writer Sid Hartman calls Jim Joyce a "Stupid imbecile."

Videos from Minneapolis, St. Paul, the Twin Cities area and Minnesota I StarTribune.com

Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. Easy to talk about umpiring from the press box.

It was also stupid.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Whatever, MTD has a great point. I played 1B too for whatever that's worth, except to dismiss your ounce of experience claim, that ball is 2B's all the way. I'm going to cover the bag like I should and in my game the perfecto would of been celebrated. The 1B got caught up in the moment as well and made the entire play more difficult than it should of been. Doesn't dismiss the call at all but to say it had no effect is just as ludicrous.

Except, of course, the first baseman made a routine play to the pitcher and got the runner by a step.

I mean this argument is a frigging joke.

[greymule]

As he came off the base, the ball slipped deeper into the glove = not a catch (?)

I can see ruling a bobble if the ball is rolling around in an open glove or is otherwise unsecured, or (obviously) if the fielder has to make some sort of move with his hand or arm to secure a ball loose in the glove. But calling a bobble when the ball simply moves down from the top of a closed glove toward the palm of a closed glove—that's a tough one.

Can you see Joyce explaining, "The ball was in the glove before the runner reached 1B, but just after the runner crossed the bag, the ball slid down toward the palm of the glove"?

Number of Major League perfect games from May 1, 1922, to October 7, 1956: zero.

Number in the past month: two (plus one).

Joyce's call was actually a rather routine bad call. We've all seen far worse, even in the World Series, that are now forgotten. It was the element of the possible perfect game that made it stand out.

[cviverito]

I keep reading comments about how the ball was bobbled or that it was not controlled before, during or after the base was tagged. As far as I've read and watched these interpretations are completely wrong. From what I see I have no doubt that the catch, the solid grip during the tag, and the natural re-grip of the ball all constitute displayed control. Why? At no time did Gallaraga's actions display a loss of control over the ball. He had secure possession on the tag and simply re-gripped the ball after the tag.

I know we all work very hard to get it right all the time...and I understand how this can be interpreted as a bobble. BUT...I think that is a smitty interpretation of the rule.

For the doubters, let me ask you this...do you think Gallaraga was bobbling the ball or do you think it was secure for the tag and Gallaraga simply re-gripped it in the style of a master after he believed he completed the out?

Before answering ask yourself one thing: Did he appear to have control before he re-gripped?

Or ask yourself this: If he did not re-grip, would you have control? If yes, why does it change with the re-grip? It would appear that the only sufficient answer is "because he lost control of it".

[LMan]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Except, of course, the first baseman made a routine play to the pitcher and got the runner by a step.

I mean this argument is a frigging joke.

Amen.

[grunewar]

Poll: Fans want umpire's blown call overturned, expanded instant replay - Daily Pitch: MLB News, Standings, Schedules & More - USATODAY.com

[UMP25]

Question to consider: what if this call was the first call of the game, with every succeeding batter being put out for a near-perfect game? Would the cries for overturning be the same?

[Kaliix]

Look, Joyce missed the call, no doubt. No matter how the play developed, the call was a gross miss, at the worst possible time.

But the play was NOT routine. I watched numerous replays and the fact is that Cabrera really had no business fielding that ball. Watch the replay again, from the wide view, and you will see that he ranged so far to his right that he as IN FRONT OF the F4 when he fielded the ball. If F4 is playing up the middle then maybe he should get it. But F4 was perfectly positioned to make the play. Cabrera, being a MLB player, should of course be aware of this and should have let this develop into a routine play.

Now this in no way absolves Joyce from the call, but I don't think he misses this one if it's a routine grounder to F4. Doesn't make it right but I think the argument has merit.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Except, of course, the first baseman made a routine play to the pitcher and got the runner by a step.

I mean this argument is a frigging joke.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by UMP25

By rule, then, that is not a catch of the ball and therefore should not be ruled an out. When tagging a base or runner, a fielder must have secure possession of the ball immediately before, during, and immediately after the tag is applied. This did not seem to occur in the play in question.

The very first time I saw the replay, admittedly after hearing about how Joyce kicked the call, I instantly belted out to myself, "Hey! The ball was moving in his mitt! He never had secure possession of it. My God! Joyce got the call correct but for the wrong reason."

Regardless, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon that defends Joyce's call or blasts it. I'm simply stating what I saw in the first replay I viewed and why.

That's not how I saw it. F1 'snow-coned' the ball, but he had complete control. After he came off the bag, he flipped it deeper into the pocket. That looked deliberate to me (he thought he had an out, and he was making sure to keep this ball as a momento since it would have been the final out in his perfect game), and happened after the criteria for ruling out/safe.

[UMP25]

No snow coning to me. The ball hit his mitt and rolled up. No secure possession; no catch; thus no tag.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Except, of course, the first baseman made a routine play to the pitcer and got the runner by a step.

I mean this argument is a frigging joke.

I'm not saying the the runner wasn't out, I'm not saying the 1B didn't make they play. But THE "routine" play was F4 fielding the ball, what's a frigging joke is the fact that you think otherwise.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by eyezen

I'm not saying the the runner wasn't out, I'm not saying the 1B didn't make they play. But THE "routine" play was F4 fielding the ball, what's a frigging joke is the fact that you think otherwise.

Asinine.

If I ever coached a first baseman that didn't go for a ball like that because he assumed some other fielder could make the play, I'd bench him.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Asinine.

If I ever coached a first baseman that didn't go for a ball like that because he assumed some other fielder could make the play, I'd bench him.

Well, that'd be a bad coaching move on your part. Good 1B's know where 2B is. There is no assumption to be made, the ball was pretty much right to 2B, the same play at 3B cutting in front of SS doesn't apply here, that is an easier play for 3B.

Let me ask you this...if 1B lets 2B field the ball and 1B goes and does what he should, are we having this conversation today?

[Kaliix]

Honestly, did you see the play...?


If you had, you would see Cabrera half way to second base and in front of F4 when he fields the ball. It's a routine play to second if he let's it go and I think we are all talking about 3 perfect games this year instead of having this discussion...

Joyce missed it. What can you do...

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Asinine.

If I ever coached a first baseman that didn't go for a ball like that because he assumed some other fielder could make the play, I'd bench him.