Foul then fair
 

Did I see the LFU signal foul then fair in top of the 2nd in the TX TB game? My DVR blocks out the ump in the replay. Anyway, it was fair and no controversy.

This is what I proposed in a prior thread about the fair/foul call that ended the Cubs/Astros game. There was a view that a ball could be fair if a small portion of it was over but not touching the line. In this case, it was fair because it kicked up chalk - that was my point. The ump was ready to call it foul until he saw chalk fly. It is completely impractical to judge a portion of the ball casting a shadow on the line.

So now PU Danley completely kicks a call on a dribbler in front of the plate. Totally incompetent call. Not to mention his zone is bad.

What if the line is painted? If a portion of the ball is over the line (where that is the deciding factor) it should be judged fair. I believe the ump had a small brain fart and corrected it. How he got away with it I don't know but if/when I do that I'm going to explain that due to my old age when I raised my right arm I had a spasm but I managed to get the other arm down and make the correct call.

You are obviously wasting your talents and experience on this site. Why don't you contact MLB and impress them as much as you have us. I'm sure they'll offer you a job. I hear Joe Torre's job, or a piece of it, might become available.

You really need to upgrade the level of people you associate with...we don't deserve you. Honest. We really don't.

Umpjim: "Did I see the LFU signal foul then fair in top of the 2nd in the TX TB game?"

Yes, you did; I saw it, too (via TNT). It sure looked like he (Marv Hudson?) signaled "Time", then quickly pointed to fair territory. Thus, no controversy as the ball "kicked up chalk" (the announcer said).

I guess Hudson had a brainfart similar to what Ed Rapuano had up in Boston in August when he, Rapuano, initially pointed foul on a ball down the left field line, then quickly caught his brainfart and did an up/down jumping dance along the line pointing fair, thus correcting himself (then signalling the ball dead as it bounded into the stands for a ground rule double).

Phil Cuzzi didn't catch his miscue during last year's playoffs when he pointed an obvious fair ball FOUL.

Is it the nerves from upiring in a high stakes game???

Larry 1953: "So now PU Danley completely kicks a call on a dribbler in front of the plate."

Regarding the dribbler in front of the plate that plate umpire Danley called "Foul", replay clearly indicated it to be Fair. It was a Texas batter who would have been out on that play, but instead he came back to the pate and eventually got a hit driving in a run. Tampa Bay manager Madden had come out to PU Danley about the call, but quickly accepted Danley's explanation with no argument (uncharacteristic of Madden, especially given the eventual consequences of the foul call).

Anyone have any information on what Danley might have said to Madden to have him so easily, quickly and quietly go back to the dugout?

I was wondering the same thing. Kerwin kicked the call royally. I am very surprised Maddon didn't get himself tossed on that.

Cookie, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe he just said he missed the call.

"[Danley] said that it hit his bat on the back swing, which would have made it a dead ball. It just got messed up -- I don't know what was happening, but I know that he hit the ball. ... He made the call, and that's what he went with."

From MLB.com this morning

ETA
Q. Two questions. What did you see and get on the --- from the umpire on the Murphy dribbler in front of the plate?

JOE MADDON: I talked to K.D. (Kerwin Danley) because I wasn't really sure. He said the ball hit the bat again and it just dribbled out in front of the plate. I had no argument at that point because I can't tell that. You'd have to ask him specifically. He may have called it a little bit quickly, I don't know. But the ball did hit. It appeared to be behind the plate but then rolled out in front of the plate, which means it is a fair ball if it is not touched.

So I went out there rather calmly and just asked him what was going on, and he told me that the ball had hit the bat again, which means it would have been a foul ball because he hit it behind the plate and pushed it fair. That's what I thought he meant, anyway.

I accepted the explanation because I couldn't tell with the naked eye what actually happened.

Good recovery by KD then. When you screw up, sell it.

No. He did not signal it foul.

David Murphy was at bat, and didn't get a hit. He struck out swinging on a wild pitch.

It looked to me like the ball had much rotation going when it first stopped, then then the rotation of the ball caused it to move out across the plate into fair ground. I don't know if Danley saw it that way, but his explanation holds water with me if he was blocked out by the catcher, and thought he saw something else altogether.

Jealous, much?

^^^Wow, a personal attack! I thought you no longer did such things. Tsk, tsk.;)