Dale Scott calls a ball foul then fair
 

In the top of the ninth inning, with the bases loaded, an up and in pitch to the San Diego batter led to a bunt attempt. Scott, who probably was startled by the pitch signaled foul clearly, then fair leading to the triple play as the San Diego runners clearly and correctly pointed out that the initial call was foul. I guess Scott will say it didn't affect the outcome of the play, but giving multiple signals to the base runners is unfair.

Not much coverage yet
 

Doesn't mention the call.

Dodgers turn triple play in 9th against Padres - Yahoo! Sports

You'll hear about it. If this happened in a postseason game, as Al Michaels would say, 'there would be hell to pay'.

The PU clearly signaled TIME, not foul (Both hands up, with emphisis). R1 and R2 reacted to that by not moving, and wandering back to their bases.

Dodger vs padres 4/15/2011Triple play - YouTube
He does hold his hands up, then points fair.

He backed off and came up with his hands but didn't signal anything until he called fair ball. Quit trying to make things up here. He NEVER pointed out the the initial call was foul.
And he for dam sure didn't (with emphais) did not, signal time!!!!!!

What are you guys smoking?

At 0:14 in the video link, he has both hands above his head. That's clearly a signal of time, whether Scott intended it or not. By rule, the ball has to be put into play again before any outs can be recorded.

It was a mistake, but the world will keep on turning.....

Padres were robbed 2 outs!
 

The batter runs toward the dugout after his wierd fair hit, abandoning his effort to run to first base by leaving the dirt circle area. :eek:

BR actions clearly remove the force on himself and other runners who remain on base. What's he have to do, enter the dugout. :p

Runners remaining on base were incorrectly called out and the manager fails to protest a new and improved BR strategy. :D


Who said it isn't necessary to run to touch first base after putting a fair ball in play. :rolleyes:

Oh PS. Notice tha Dodgers catcher step on the plate for out 1, throws to third for out 2, and then third relays to second for out 3, and second relays to 1st for that advantageous 4th out. :confused: (ran out of silly emoticons)

I can see why people (including the batter, R3, R2, R1, and Bud Black) thought he was signaling fair because he wussed out so much with the hands in the air. That's not a typical reaction from a veteran umpire. What, did he think the ball was going to hit him, so he got real flinchy? His hands had no business going above his head like that unless he was calling foul, HBP, or was being held up at gunpoint.

I am grateful that I never had you for an umpire. smdh!

Emoji one cano be?
 

13 sec into video, fair or foul?

Humpty dumpty call?
 

I see the ball on the left-side of the plate, strike the side of the plate and roll off to the left.
I see ump raised hands, fist closed.
I see ump palms open and signal time.
I see ump point fair, putting the foul ball back in play.
I see ump fist close and signal the 1st out at HP.
(Under Review, confusing arm extended right/left fair signal with multiple hammer, finger-pointing to center field fair calls)
3BU signals the 2nd out.
2BU signals the 3rd out.
1BU signals the 4th out.
An entire crew couldn't put that one back together again.

See article and video link
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index...b_1&mode=video

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20659155

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20655513

Well, he didn't signal an out at HP, because there was only R1 and R2 on base at the time.

But, after watching the much better mlb.com video, Scott definitely signaled either Time or Foul, then changed his mind, totally confusing the San Diego Padres.

Con.fu.sion [kuhn-fyoo-zhahn]

noun

1. The act of confusing.

2. The state of being confused.

3. A San Diego thing nobody understands..............:confused:

Some of you guys are smoking some really good stuff. If that's not a "foul" mechanic after the "startled" look, I don't know what is. Scott should have manned up and owned his mistake on the field vs. changing the game w/ a triple play.

This is not meant to be disparaging by any means, but it is what it is. I've made the same mistake before (where he holds up his hands as if to get out of the way)...but this is a pretty clear "foul" mechanic.

http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/...6at63709AM.png

That looks like he called "Time".

It is hard to tell from the video but, I think there was a decent chance that the ball WAS foul.

You might be right...only Scott and F2 know for sure.

If that's the case, and we don't know for sure, call the foul ball which is what he signaled anyway.

I can't believe his three partners would let him fall on the sword like that. We don't know what they talked about in their huddle, for all we know maybe they told him that they saw his foul call and he said that he was going to eat it. We just don't know.

See screen shot.

What's he getting out of the way of? He's darn near 3BLX on the edge of the dirt circle. He was probably calling it foul, and then the ball rolled back into fair territory. Screwed the pooch big time, I'd say. Man up, Dale!

The PU made a mechanical error. It happens. Heck, in all the excitement, he may not of even known he did that. I get that.

But he had three base umpire who had a wide angle view of the whole thing, and should have killed it. Those are the guys I blame for not fixing this mess.

Completely smoke free at the moment - and it's pretty clear that he raised both of his hands in the air. If I'm a runner, I'm definitely interpreting that as a dead ball signal.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

+1

Aww ... c'mon. :rolleyes: :D
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'. :p 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.) :D

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!

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.

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.

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

YOUR DAM RIGHT.

Even my weinersnouser knows dat.

Now you are being confusing, because it actually was the Dodgers played it out and the Padres didn't.:confused:

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.

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.

Spanner in the works
 

Ok, for a second put yourself behind the plate...

The batter jumps out to bunt.
The pitch heads towards the batters head.
The batter to avoid wearing it, jumps back and you hear a thwack!
The batter heads off toward the dugout like he has been hit. You think he has been hit so start to raise your arms to call dead ball and glance at your crew (Our local mechanics say when a player gets hit all field umps that saw it signal as it is often difficult to see from behind)
Your crew is not signalling dead ball so you realize it didn't hit him (he is just acting like it did) just as you finish opening your fists for the 'dead ball' and you see the catcher pick the ball up just in front of home plate (foul - is based on where it settles so it isn't foul)

If he had not opened his hands and instead dropped them to his side would the play have been that different? Did the runners react to the umpire or their batter? :eek:

Watch it again at normal speed...

OOPS! The Dodger's hustled (and this from a died-in-the-wool Giant's fan)

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.

Now that makes sense
 

LOL, i like that and its so true.

Thanks
David:)

And the fact that there are three other umpires who called "nothing" tells me that it was NOT that obvious in real time what he had. (they were probably confused also)

He was left on his own, he made the call, and as they say "now its over but the cryin',

thanks
David

You have made several excellent points here.

I'm all for the base umpires letting things play out, and calling outs in real time.

But when the dust settled, they had to have seen their PU gesture TIME!, and should have told him so.

All I can say is it matters to me what came out of his mouth. I can see how players might react to initial actions of the umpire, but if they did not hear anything they need to act like a ball is live. They also could have been reacting to the batter, which they act like is the case in other situations.

Peace

MLB Responds to Play
 

Here are some interesting facts about the play and, more important, the last paragraph is the response from MLB.

Dodgers turn first 2-5-6-3 triple play in history but Padres cry foul over umpire?s actions | Big League Stew - Yahoo! Sports

The ball kicks off the left side of the plate which is over fair territory. While I believe the ball is foul, it is difficult to tell if the ball rolled off the left side of the plate into foul territory inches away from the left side of the plate. Looking at the play, F2 straddles the plate and picks the ball up in front of his right foot which is over foul territory. Is this a foul ball? Perhaps an overhead view from the camera, if one exists, would be more definitive. Does anyone here think the ball is in front of the plate?

"At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field." Quote MLB

Which means:

HE DIDN'T SAY NUTTIN!

I think that's something that I can learn from and certainly others too. Hand motions are important part of what we do; however, the verbal communication is the determining factor. It's nice to see that verbalized by MLB.

In reading the article, I like what F2 said about learning to make the plays etc., that's what they have been taught since HS.

I also like what Jeff said about the players really reacting to the batter and not the umpire. Once they did that, and F2 followed through with the play, they were toast.

Thanks
David

But they didn't say that. In fact the statement avoids saying what it takes to call time. It does however acknowledge that the mechanic was incorrect.

I guess from now on, continue running even after the umpire raises both hands because you never know if the umpire is going to say 'I really didn't mean it'.

Doug Eddings would be proud.

Not to belabor a point; however, he did state in his comments that

"At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field.",

Just my inferences from that statement is where I made my conclusions.

Might not be right, but I'm stickin to it .... :D

Thanks
David

How many calls do we see signalled but not verbalized? Watch an MLB contest sometime and you may be surprised.

Every can of corn. Every non-close play at first. Even many swinging strike threes. I think that's what irks me with this play. It's clear that the mechanics mean something. Yet they are being ignored here, when clearly those mechanics put a team in jeopardy.

You're right. I AM saying that. I'm saying that signaling "dead ball" is the same as calling "dead ball" which is the same as when a batter swings and misses at strike three and the PU merely signals the "strike/out" is the same as calling "strike three" without saying "Steeeriiiike Three, Batter's Out!!" :rolleyes::p

To borrow from the late Mike Wallace, "C'mon!"

Look, we're in the communication business. Our mechanics are a major part of our communication. Dale Scott called a "dead ball/foul ball" once he signaled such.

Who calls "dead ball"? It's either "FOUL" or "TIME". This isn't softball.

I take comfort in the fact that the best of the best screw up. Hey we're all human and make mistakes. Good calls or bad calls there just part of the game. When I get yelled at for my call of a wacker at first or a call I make on a pitch I remind myself the guys in the Show get yelled at as well and I put it behind me.

You forgot every fair batted ball. In fact, the mechanics are to not say anything.

Your right Mike mechanics mean a lot and we are not ignoring this but, of all the people here jumping all over this, Baseball Umpires should know more than ANYONE, S#it happens and can relate personnaly to things like this.

Ever blow a call, start to make a safe signal and realize the runner is out, call a balk that wasn't, a foul ball that wasn't, fail to call batter interference, obstruction, miss a pitch, etc etc etc.

How many of those did you go back and change because everyone thought you should?

Yea, maybe the fact that the umpire didn't say "Time" or "Dead Ball" is a weak argument but, for those that can't accept that, how about "**** Happens" even at that level and move on.

I have seen dialogue frrom suspend these officials to throw them out of the league and everything else under the sun in articles and public forums. I come to this forum and think that maybe we just might have an understanding what transpired from our own experience and low and behold we have all the holier than thou officials who are acting like the new bride wearing white, getting married for the 7th time. If the players maintained or even came close to the perfection level of the officials, it would be a boring GAME.

Well, you started out defending the call and stating that he didn't call Time or Foul, even after you saw the MLB video. Are you now willing to say that by emphatically throwing both hands far above his head, he was in effect killing the ball in this case, and therefore had no business changing his call to a fair ball, and thereby causing a triple play that never should have been? When the runners saw him signal, they correctly surmised that the ball was no longer alive for some reason, and did not need to continue the play.

Sure, we have all screwed the pooch in similar fashion in one way or the other occasionally, but we usually own up to it, not alibi and cover it up with the backing of three other umpires to perpetrate the fraud. We say, "I messed up, I'll bear down harder next time," or some words of contrition. The fact that all four umpires huddled up, and then tried to sell a bill of goods that the ball magically became alive again, after being clearly signaled dead, was not being forthright and honest. By saying, "At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field," they are saying, "Hey, you are all a bunch of idiots, and you didn't see what your eyes tell you that you saw." Once Scott threw his hands up to the sky like he was going to shout, "Hallelujah," he should have sold the Foul call for all it was worth.

Oh now it is a fraud? Next thing it will be a conspiracy by the umpires against the Padres. Lets call a joint session of Congress to get behind this National Travestry. Arrange a UN General Session for 8:00pm.

Steve, all I hope for is that someday I can become 1/2 as good of an official as you think you are in "Steve's World".

Personally, I love watching the Padres get screwed. Especially when that homer Dick Enberg gets all angry at the umpires.

Sometimes I think we forget that we're not robots. It appears to me that Scott put his hands up while backing away from the catcher. I can see where the Padres players thought the play was killed, but on a close play like this, I'd assume the call would have been "sold" by the umpire. The only selling was when the ball was called fair. In my opinion, this was an unfortunate mistake the instinctual reaction of Mr. Scott.

Yes, and then he started to pull them down, and went back up with a distinct and sharp palms out dead ball mechanic. Regardless of what he verbalized, he clearly (to my eyes) signaled foul and then signaled fair. By not owning his mistake, he gave the Dodgers a cheap triple play, and one like it has never been earned before and won't be earned again (and wasn't earned this time, either).

None. See... you've actually made my point for me. He killed the ball, and runners reacted. He went back and changed this to fair ball semi-immediately, but the damage was already done. Once he killed the ball (on purpose or not!), the only solution is to live with it, and take almost all the crap from that coach that he wants to dish.

The reality is if the had called a foul ball and the video showed that the batter was not hit by the baseball, then we would be killing the guys for by calling it too soon. He was wrong either way.

Peace

I don't think so. I think he's getting killed for calling it both ways. Umpires make mistakes all the time, but it takes calling a ball foul then fair to generate 5 pages (so far) of discussion. For that matter, if he'd called it fair then foul, I don't think it would generate this much discussion.

1 call, had it been wrong, would have gotten him yelled at, but not crucified. It's the multiple calls that makes this one disastrous.

There are several examples of the media going nuts over calls that they think should have been called. It often does not last that long in the sport of baseball because the situation takes place one day and there is a game the following day. I was also not talking about this board and the reaction here, I was talking about the reaction from the media and public. We are discussing this from a different angle here, but this was not discussed from the same angle on SportsCenter or every other sports talk show that I heard this being discussed.

Peace

That depends on what happened afterwards. If the batter went on to hit a single or score some runs on a hit, and LA goes on to lose or the outcome is affected, yes he would have been crucified IMO. And it was not disastrous to me or to many if he did not verbally say anything. Players often react to things regardless of what we signal. I think SD used that as the excuse to not move, but if he did not signal anything they would have claimed the batter looked like he got hurt. Having been in some blowouts about similar situations and I did not signal anything or verbalize anything, I am not convinced that was the reason they stayed put.

Peace

1) That signal is a "dead ball" signal. If that's what you've signaled, that's what you've called.

2) If a batter chops one that comes up and hits him but the PU is blocked and doesn't see it, do you as the BU call "foul!" or do you call "Dead!" As for me, I'll call "dead!" It's my partner's responsibility to know if the batter was still in the box, or not and, therefore, is his "foul" call, not mine.

Not true my good man, not true.

T

I've never heard anyone call "Dead!". I've heard "Dead Ball!" but that's universally past it's days. Now, it's either "Time!" or "Foul!". "Time" is proper, "Foul!" is accepted, remembering that it may not actaully be a foul ball, as part of the box is in fair territory. Plus, the runner can have one foot still in the box, the ball hit him over fair territory, and still not be out for INT.

Perhaps you're right at the college or pro level. Since I don't work those levels, I won't dispute what you're saying. I can tell you that it is a "dead ball" (as well as "time" and "foul") signal at the NFHS level.

http://holidaybasketball.com/images/...ead%20ball.jpg

But my point remains the same, if you've signaled it, you've called it.

Ouch! :eek: Now you're making me feel like an old dog. :D

Teach me a new trick, then. Are you saying that a batted ball chopped at the plate that comes up and hits the batter unseen by the PU results in the BU calling "Time"? If so, in what levels is that being taught?

It's an interesting idea. I've never heard of not using "Dead" or "Dead Ball." What's the rationale? Is it merely to delineate a distinction between baseball and softball?

And wonder if in his mind he didn't kill the ball? If your statement was based upon a discussion you had with him, then by all means your right. I am given him the benifit of the doubt and that is the difference in what we surmise.

The calls make the ball dead, but we don't call "Dead Ball." We don't say "Dead Ball" anymore. It used to be used for a HBP or a ball going into DBT, many, many years ago, but it went out of favor, mostly due to wiseacre clinicians who would perform a funeral for the ball if you said, "Dead ball" instead of "Time." Personally, I don't see what all the fuss was ever about, except clinicians trying to look really smart and be funny in clinics.

In your example of the ball coming up and hitting the batter still in the box, the proper call for the PU has ALWAYS been "Foul." The BU calls "Time" when he sees the ball bounce up and hit the batter, and kills the ball (making it dead :)) and lets the PU decide whether or not the batter was still in the box, making it a foul (or an out if batter was out of the box).

I call "TIME!"

First of all, I don't give a crap about the Padres. If it had been the Dodgers, or any other team I would feel the same way. What is a travestry, BTW? It was a BAD CALL, or do you think it was a GOOD CALL? Sheesh!

Secondly, you have no idea what caliber official I am, but I have watched you work on TV, and you looked fairly run-of-the-mill to me. I don't think I'm good, I have the ratings and evals to back it up, so stop with the personal insults. A whole helluva a lot of people think I am damn fine umpire, and that's good enough for me. I believe them.

Steve,
I have never seen you umpire. (As far as I know.) But I can absolutely tell you are an excellent umpire by what I've read from you on this board. I, for one, truly appreciate what you add to this board and I have learned a lot from reading posts from folks such as yourself. (And I've been doing this for nearly 30 years.) I'm still trying to learn all the time.

It matters not what was in his head. He signaled (and therefore called) "foul." (And then later "fair.") The benefit of doubt is irrelevant. The mechanics were poor and confusing.

Hmmm ... looks like I need to change my mechanic on this one. As SDSteve pointed out, I don't know what the big deal is. All it takes is somebody of authority to have a pet peeve over something as trivial as "dead ball" vs. "time", and the next thing you know a new "proper" mechanic is born.

For the record I say, "Dead" when I use that signal. But I would not use the signal without saying something. Actually if only which way we point mattered, what would you do if someone pointed a ball fair, but for some reason got turned around and pointed in foul territory? Would we consider that a signaling of a foul ball and then kill the play? The reason I ask because years ago I did jut that when a ball almost hit me and I got turned around and very briefly signaled in the wrong direction.

Peace

Not true. Was looking in my BRD and at the NFHS level there is a whole section on reversing a call etc.,

That is also why they added the rule a couple years ago about what happens now when the umpire does verbalize "foul" etc.,

I'm not agreeing he did everything wrong, but I am saying I've had similiar plays happen and sometimes you just have to umpire.

But its obviously NOT cut and dry that just because you throw your arms out that you have a dead ball.

thanks
David

That guy has ENORMOUS hands.

Maybe his hands are "normal" sized; it's just the rest of his body that's small.

Whether it was a good or bad call is your hangup, not mine. Whether he screwed up or not with his hands and arms, well he already agreed with that. So we disagree. Bingo. I still have to work tomorrow.

Now, if your going to try and convince me that you saw me on TV, well I think Dale Scott has a better chance of convincing me that he was praising the catcher's fine play at the plate with his arms up, noticed the ball was fair when touched and pointed it fair. That is much more believable. But good try!

No, what I'm saying is that he first called it Foul, then changed his call to Fair. Nothing more, nothing less. He blew the call. Very simply put.

I saw you work a game on TV. It was some kind of all-start game or something like that. Wasn't that you who said you were working a TV game, and even said what channel it was going to be on and everything? If it wasn't you who said it, I apologize. I really thought you were the umpire working first base in that game, and that I was watching you. Who was it then, anybody remember? It was a couple years ago, IIRC.

No he didn't. This was MLB and according to MLB he may have signaled "time", but he definitely did not signal foul.

Sorry wrong guy and I too, apologize if you thought I was getting personal.

Again I was given him the benefit of the doubt because after all these years I truly respect what the MLB official does and the road he has traveled to get there. And I am sure you do too.

You know what they say about umpires with big hands?

They need large indicators! Good one, briancurtin!

Okay. Right. Would you agree, or not, that signaling "time" kills the play? ;) Whatever is meant by that signal still results in a dead ball. IMO, the crew needed to eat this one instead of trying to put the youknowwhat back into the steer.

He DID kill the ball. there may be a difference of opinion regarding whether he did it on purpose or not, or was even aware he did it. But he's got 3 partners out there. I find the chances that NONE of them noticed his signal exceedingly small.

And apparently has a gun in his back. Another tell-tale sign of a Smitty -- throws his hands up over his head like he's being held up when calling "TIME" (or more than likely "DEAD BALL").

It's a drawing! Be reasonable, troll elsewhere! :mad:

Easy for you to say, FitUmp. And my ignore lists grows larger.

Thank you for the correction, although I fail to pay any attention to it at all! :eek:

Let's be friends, both of us just joined the gruppe recently!