The Replay

Ryan Robbins wrote:
> Go to MLB.com and look at the replay of the strikeout. Watch the head-on,
> slow motion closeup. The ball skips into the glove.

I think it skips into the glove, but it doesn't skip from the ground to
the glove, it skips from the webbing (which was against the ground)
into the pocket of the glove.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

dave clark wrote:
> TIVO says no.
>
> besides, he called him out. end of story.

He didn't call him out. He gave his normal signal for a swinging
strike, and vocalized "strike three." The problem is that his strike
signal looks the same as an out signal. The catcher should have made
sure and tagged the guy just like catchers usually do with a ball that
is borderline as to whether it hit the ground or not.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

Ryan Robbins wrote:
> "dave clark" <DavidNClark RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129185778.991032.7640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > TIVO says no.
> >
> > besides, he called him out.
>
> No, he did not. He signaled a swing and miss.

I'm honestly trying to understand this. Some questions.

First, I'm less concerned with whether the ball actually hit the
ground. I don't see that it did, and I don't know how ANY of the umps
could -- or should -- make that call on a ball that close to the
ground; but let's assume that the umpire was correct and that the ball
hit the ground. Assuming that, then:

1) Do you see anything wrong with the way the play was called?

2) How _should_ the play have been called once the umpire believed the
ball hit the ground?

3) If the first signal was for swing-and-miss, and the second signal
was for strike three (but not for "out"), then what WOULD the signal
for "out" have been?

4) Since he was calling strikeouts like that the whole game, with the
two signals, how were the players to know that for the play in
question, the batter was not actually being called out like he was on
all the previous occasions when the same signals were made? Shouldn't
the ump have a third "mechanic" to signal that the batter is actually
being called out?

5) How were the players to know that the third out had not yet been
recorded?

6) Are oral signals ever a substitute for hand signals? If so, same
question as 4.

I think people are less concerned with whether the ball actually hit
the ground (although I don't see how the ump could possibly know enough
to make the call) than they are the fact that it seemed like the umpire
did not signal properly to the players to let them know what he had
called (or not called).

I can see if *I* am confused by whatever signals he's throwing up. But
the *players* being confused? The *catcher* being confused? The
pitcher and the first baseman?

Did even a single player know what was happening? All of the Angels we
saw in the footage seemed to be just heading off of the field, totally
oblivious. Is that not the umpire's fault?

--Ray
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Ryan Robbins wrote:
> > "dave clark" <DavidNClark DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129185778.991032.7640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > TIVO says no.
> > >
> > > besides, he called him out.
> >
> > No, he did not. He signaled a swing and miss.
>
> I'm honestly trying to understand this. Some questions.
>
> First, I'm less concerned with whether the ball actually hit the
> ground. I don't see that it did, and I don't know how ANY of the umps
> could -- or should -- make that call on a ball that close to the
> ground; but let's assume that the umpire was correct and that the ball
> hit the ground. Assuming that, then:
>
> 1) Do you see anything wrong with the way the play was called?

I think his strike call looks just like an out call. He'd be better of
just verbally saying "strike three...no catch" if that's what he had,
and maybe even giving a safe sign to indicate that the batter was not
out yet.


> I can see if *I* am confused by whatever signals he's throwing up. But
> the *players* being confused? The *catcher* being confused?

The catcher does not have eyes in the back of his head, so he doesn't
see what signals are being given. I think if he doesn't hear something
that verifies that the batter is out, or that he caught the ball
cleanly, that he needs to tag the batter just to be sure. You see it
all the time, catchers are taught to tag the batter on anything close,
just in case the umpire thinks that the ball hit the ground.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

"dave clark" <DavidNClark.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129185778.991032.7640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> TIVO says no.
>
> besides, he called him out.

No, he did not. He signaled a swing and miss.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

SavoyBG.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:
> Ryan Robbins wrote:
> > Go to MLB.com and look at the replay of the strikeout. Watch the head-on,
> > slow motion closeup. The ball skips into the glove.
>
> I think it skips into the glove, but it doesn't skip from the ground to
> the glove, it skips from the webbing (which was against the ground)
> into the pocket of the glove.

Which would be a catch and strike three.

And an out.

--Ray
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

"Raymond DiPerna" <rdiperna.RemoveThis@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1129189412.768090.74060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I'm honestly trying to understand this. Some questions.
>
> First, I'm less concerned with whether the ball actually hit the
> ground. I don't see that it did, and I don't know how ANY of the umps
> could -- or should -- make that call on a ball that close to the
> ground; but let's assume that the umpire was correct and that the ball
> hit the ground. Assuming that, then:
>
> 1) Do you see anything wrong with the way the play was called?

I don't know what the plate umpire said at the time, if anything.

> 2) How _should_ the play have been called once the umpire believed the
> ball hit the ground?

When there is doubt, the umpire will generally say nothing if he believes
the third strike was not caught legally, or he will say "the batter is out,
the batter is out" if he believes the ball was caught legally.

> 3) If the first signal was for swing-and-miss, and the second signal
> was for strike three (but not for "out"), then what WOULD the signal
> for "out" have been?

Unless it's an obvious out, such as a routine play at first in which the
throw beats the batter-runner by a considerable margin, the umpire won't say
anything when he signals. But the closer the play becomes, the more he will
sell the "out" call. On an uncaught third strike, I say nothing about the
ball's not being caught, as do most umpires.

> 4) Since he was calling strikeouts like that the whole game, with the
> two signals, how were the players to know that for the play in
> question, the batter was not actually being called out like he was on
> all the previous occasions when the same signals were made? Shouldn't
> the ump have a third "mechanic" to signal that the batter is actually
> being called out?

He will verbalize the "out" call in this situation.

> 5) How were the players to know that the third out had not yet been
> recorded?

The catcher would be able to hear the umpire if the umpire had declared the
batter out on the strike.

> Did even a single player know what was happening?

The batter didn't hear that he was out, so he did what he was supposed to do
in running to first.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

On 10/13/2005 1:01:58 AM, Ryan Robbins wrote:

> When there is doubt, the umpire will generally say nothing if he
> believes the third strike was not caught legally, or he will say "the
> batter is out, the batter is out" if he believes the ball was caught
> legally.

Then why did players from BOTH teams say that umpires generally yell "No
Catch!" repeatedly on a third strike that hits the dirt?
--
"He's Picasso with a slider." - M's manager Bob Melvin on John Smoltz

Now playing: "Institute - When Animals Attack"
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

Tarkus wrote:
> On 10/13/2005 5:40:57 AM, Steve Cutchen wrote:
>
> > He will say nothing if the BR has a chance to advance on a swinging
> > strike not caught. By saying nothing, he's basically letting play
> > proceed.
>
> Then why did players from BOTH teams say that umpires generally yell "No
> Catch!" repeatedly on third strikes that hit the dirt? Even Pierzynski,
> a catcher, said that. And he has no reason to lie about it, since he
> benefited from the play.

Which would seem to make sense and be consistent with what we normally
see. Often we see this play develop instantly, as if turning on a
switch; all of a sudden the runner will take off for first and the
catcher will spring up and throw to first. That didn't happen here
and, of course, the umpire said he didn't in fact yell "no catch!".

--Ray
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

It doesn't matter. The foul tip and ball in the dirt rule was designed
because to compensate for the in ability of an ump to cleanly make just
this kind of call.

How the hell was the ump supposed to see it? And how can a player know
if he caught it or trapped it?

The correct play there is for the catcher to tag the player... PERIOD.
That's how the position is supposed to be played, otherwise your taking
your risks.

Ruben
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

In article <1129189412.768090.74060.TakeThisOut@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna.TakeThisOut@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

> Ryan Robbins wrote:
> > "dave clark" <DavidNClark.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1129185778.991032.7640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > TIVO says no.
> > >
> > > besides, he called him out.
> >
> > No, he did not. He signaled a swing and miss.
>
> I'm honestly trying to understand this. Some questions.
>
> First, I'm less concerned with whether the ball actually hit the
> ground. I don't see that it did, and I don't know how ANY of the umps
> could -- or should -- make that call on a ball that close to the
> ground; but let's assume that the umpire was correct and that the ball
> hit the ground. Assuming that, then:
>
> 1) Do you see anything wrong with the way the play was called?
>
> 2) How _should_ the play have been called once the umpire believed the
> ball hit the ground?

The ump's call was completely consistent with a ball in the dirt.

> 3) If the first signal was for swing-and-miss, and the second signal
> was for strike three (but not for "out"), then what WOULD the signal
> for "out" have been?

Usually, the PU does not signal an out on a strikeout. He just signals
strike three. On swinging strikes there is usually nothing said,
basically as a courtesy to the batter; not showing him up. (Batter
swings and misses, then ump goes "STRIKE THREE!!!! That would be
aweful.) Ump will DEFINATELY make a call on CALLED strikes, especially
strike three. On a third strike in a situation where the batter can
advance on a swinging strike not caught, the ump will verbally call the
batter out if he thinks the ball did not hit the dirt. "He went! He's
out!" He will say nothing if the BR has a chance to advance on a
swinging strike not caught. By saying nothing, he's basically letting
play proceed. It's nothing yet...

> 4) Since he was calling strikeouts like that the whole game, with the
> two signals, how were the players to know that for the play in
> question, the batter was not actually being called out like he was on
> all the previous occasions when the same signals were made? Shouldn't
> the ump have a third "mechanic" to signal that the batter is actually
> being called out?

If the ball was ruled caught, the ump should have verbalized that the
batter was out. But there is not normally a separate mechanic. The
catcher can't see it anyhow...

> 5) How were the players to know that the third out had not yet been
> recorded?

They are supposed to play it as if the ball is in the dirt and the BR
can advance... This was a major screwup by the Angels F2.

> 6) Are oral signals ever a substitute for hand signals? If so, same
> question as 4.

Sure.

> I think people are less concerned with whether the ball actually hit
> the ground (although I don't see how the ump could possibly know enough
> to make the call) than they are the fact that it seemed like the umpire
> did not signal properly to the players to let them know what he had
> called (or not called).
>
> I can see if *I* am confused by whatever signals he's throwing up. But
> the *players* being confused? The *catcher* being confused? The
> pitcher and the first baseman?
>
> Did even a single player know what was happening? All of the Angels we
> saw in the footage seemed to be just heading off of the field, totally
> oblivious. Is that not the umpire's fault?

The ump's calls were totally consistent with a ball in the dirt. I
think the Angels fielders responded to the Angels catcher. The first
baseman did go to cover the bag... but then left when the catcher
rolled the ball to the mound.

I agree with you that I'm less concerned about whether the ball really
was in the dirt or not. that's a hard call to make. But that is
precisely why catchers are taught from the time they leave Little
League (where BRs can't advance...) that they play every close pitch as
if it was in the dirt. Start watching on swinging third strikes that
are low... F2 will pretty much lways reach up and tag the BR after he
catches the ball... just in case, and to leave no doubt with the ump.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

On 10/13/2005 5:40:57 AM, Steve Cutchen wrote:

> He will say nothing if the BR has a chance to advance on a swinging
> strike not caught. By saying nothing, he's basically letting play
> proceed.

Then why did players from BOTH teams say that umpires generally yell "No
Catch!" repeatedly on third strikes that hit the dirt? Even Pierzynski,
a catcher, said that. And he has no reason to lie about it, since he
benefited from the play.
--
"I don't think I've ever thrown him a changeup in my career and he's
sitting on it. I think he's from another planet, in my opinion."
- Kent Mercker on Barry Bonds

Now playing: "Institute - Come on Over"
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay 

In article <1129185868.469798.320740.DeleteThis@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<SavoyBG.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

> Ryan Robbins wrote:
> > Go to MLB.com and look at the replay of the strikeout. Watch the head-on,
> > slow motion closeup. The ball skips into the glove.
>
> I think it skips into the glove, but it doesn't skip from the ground to
> the glove, it skips from the webbing (which was against the ground)
> into the pocket of the glove.

And the ump is above and behind the catcher on the play... This is
always a difficult call to make when it's close. And the umps opn the
bases can't be much help either; they are too far away to see it.

The real key is this. The catcher is taught since high school to play
those plays as if the ball hit the dirt. The ump is going to make a
call as best as he can, but your play is simple. It is a completely
routine play for even a high school catcher if he fields the skip/no
skip. So just go through the motions and tag the batter-runner or
throw to first. Every time. Or start running laps, son.
 >> Stay informed about: The Replay