Dale Scott calls a ball foul then fair

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

That looks like he called "Time".

Raising your hands is not "calling time" There are all kinds of reasons why he may have raised his hands. Calling "Time" requires a verbal statement:

5.10 The ball becomes dead when an umpire calls “Time.” The umpire-in-chief shall
call “Time”—

Two things - 1) raising the hands was confusing, but 2)the Padres played it out, the Dodgers didn't. You always gotta play it out.

[jicecone]

The first video I saw did'nt show this however after studying the MLB video it looks to me like he brought his hand up and then went further to make a fair call signal. I am not saying what he did looked good but as already pointed out it is nothing until "Time " is called. The picture is incriminating but does not tell the whole story. Good try though.

The runners were just as surprised and confused as everyone else so what is unusal with the fact that they are going to blame their confusion on the official.

Triple Play

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by jicecone

The runners were just as surprised and confused as everyone else so what is unusal with the fact that they are going to blame their confusion on the official.

Yes, they were surprised and confused- because the umpire gave a surprising and confusing signal!

If he had just pointed fair in the first place, without all of the arms in the air stuff, do you think the runners would have still been confused?

[kylejt]

Here's what I see:

The PU's hands go up as a reaction to F2 looking for the ball.

THEN, his hands jump up in emphisis, and that's what nearly everyone sees as him calling TIME.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by kylejt

here's what i see:

The pu's hands go up as a reaction to f2 looking for the ball.

Then, his hands jump up in emphisis, and that's what nearly everyone sees as him calling time.

+1

[blueump]

I was watching the game live on MLB when it happened. My initial reaction was the same as the offensive team..he called it foul.

They then replayed it (of course) over and over again from multiple angles. I came away with this conclusion.

Initially his hands went up with closed fists appearing as if he were trying to not be hit with the ball. That action in itself confused me, since the ball clearly came off the bat and was no where near him.

It then appeared that he began to drop his hands, but then changed his mind and clearly and deliberately raised them up above his head as if he were calling a dead ball.

A split second latter he realized where the ball was and pointed fair. Then, almost as if he realized he had made a terrible mistake, he emphatically pointed fair multiple times - trying to "sell" the call.

I personally don't think it would have made a difference either way. Those that argue the base runners only returned because of the hands up are completely wrong...there is no way they could have made it to the next base in time. I do however believe that putting his hands up to call time should have killed the play immediately and he should have sucked it up and admitted he made a mistake. We don't expect them to be perfect, we do however expect them to have integrity! That is something he apparently doesn't have.

[David B]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Yes, they were surprised and confused- because the umpire gave a surprising and confusing signal!

If he had just pointed fair in the first place, without all of the arms in the air stuff, do you think the runners would have still been confused?

But these are MLB players. You should know to run on everything like that. You can always return if its called foul.

I know as PU, I've done the same thing trying to get out of the way of the F2 etc., it looks like a type of signal, but if he didn't say anything then its play on.

For sure, F2 didn't hear anything and made the play as he should have. If PU had called foul, time, or dead ball, F2 would have heard it for sure.

Thanks
David

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David B

But these are MLB players. You should know to run on everything like that. You can always return if its called foul.

I know as PU, I've done the same thing trying to get out of the way of the F2 etc., it looks like a type of signal, but if he didn't say anything then its play on.

For sure, F2 didn't hear anything and made the play as he should have. If PU had called foul, time, or dead ball, F2 would have heard it for sure.

Thanks
David

Sure, you run on anything... until it's called foul. Which it appeared to be ... which is why they stopped!

[Steven Tyler]

The kick is up, and it's good.

I remember during the All Star game in St. Louis, Dana Demuth (PU) gave the basketball 20 second time out signal on a foul ball down in deep left field.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David B

But these are MLB players. You should know to run on everything like that. You can always return if its called foul.

I know as PU, I've done the same thing trying to get out of the way of the F2 etc., it looks like a type of signal, but if he didn't say anything then its play on.

For sure, F2 didn't hear anything and made the play as he should have. If PU had called foul, time, or dead ball, F2 would have heard it for sure.

Thanks
David

You freeze on a line drive until it clears the infielders - you don't always run.

F2 had his back to the umpire - no way he could see a signal. Trouble is, the others could.

This ain't legion with 27 folks scattered about the park. In a MLB stadium full of noisy fans. You have to depend on seeing signals - because you can't always hear them.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Raising your hands is not "calling time" There are all kinds of reasons why he may have raised his hands. Calling "Time" requires a verbal statement:

5.10 The ball becomes dead when an umpire calls “Time.” The umpire-in-chief shall
call “Time”—

Two things - 1) raising the hands was confusing, but 2)the Padres played it out, the Dodgers didn't. You always gotta play it out.

Aww ... c'mon.
Rule 2.00 also says:
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip.

So using your logic, if the batter swings and misses and the umpire doesn't actually call "strike", it doesn't count as a strike?

You might be sellin', but I ain't buyin'. Scott clearly signaled "time" which is the same as calling "time".

(I've got no dog in this fight. I'm a Cubs fan. Come to think of it ... I guess that means I have no dog an any fight.)

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Aww ... c'mon.
Rule 2.00 also says:
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip.

So using your logic, if the batter swings and misses and the umpire doesn't actually call "strike", it doesn't count as a strike?

You might be sellin', but I ain't buyin'. Scott clearly signaled "time" which is the same as calling "time".

(I've got no dog in this fight. I'm a Cubs fan. Come to think of it ... I guess that means I have no dog an any fight.)

If your suggesting that it aint nutting until the umpire calls it,

YOUR DAM RIGHT.

Even my weinersnouser knows dat.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jicecone

If your suggesting that it aint nutting until the umpire calls it,

YOUR DAM RIGHT.

Even my weinersnouser knows dat.

Yup, it wasn't nothin' till Scott called it Foul. You are right. Then it became a foul at that time. How it mysteriously became fair again, only Dale can tell you. You can't put the crap back in the horse, but I guess you can in this case.

[johnnyg08]

I can't believe so many of you are pretending like there aren't any issues with him putting his hands up (not initially) but then in the screen shot that is a foul, time mechanic. Call it what you want, but it ain't nothing. Nobody's on here is saying that we're perfect, but to blindly defend a major error is scary. I know for a fact that I've put my arms up like I'm trying to get out of the way and it has never burned me before...but I'm learning from this and keeping my hands down for sure.

I think w/ 4 of them out there, they could've called it foul and stuck with what he called and they would've been okay.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I can't believe so many of you are pretending like there aren't any issues with him putting his hands up (not initially) but then in the screen shot that is a foul, time mechanic. Call it what you want, but it ain't nothing. Nobody's on here is saying that we're perfect, but to blindly defend a major error is scary. I know for a fact that I've put my arms up like I'm trying to get out of the way and it has never burned me before...but I'm learning from this and keeping my hands down for sure.

I think w/ 4 of them out there, they could've called it foul and stuck with what he called and they would've been okay.

Oh there were definite issues with him putting his hands up and we may never no exactly why but, maybe , just maybe he stuck with what he had because in his mind that was the right call. Maybe by now he also sees how bad it looked but, at that time though, with all his experience, and in his mind, the right decision was made and that is why he stuck with it.

I am given him the benefit of the doubt here because of the professional he is. I also realize that he just may have screwed the pooch and didn't want to come clean but .............. I find it hard to believe he got where he is being that devious all the time.