2
   

Is it to early to get excited?

 
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 08:03 am
Two outs and a swinging 3rd strike. AJ thought it hit the dirt so he took of running. The Angels left the field thinking he struck out. AJ safe. Crede doubles off the wall after Pablo Ozuna pinch runs for AJ and steals second and scores. Game over.

I really can't tell if the ball hit the dirt or not. I'm thinking no... but I am not giving the win back.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 09:23 am
That play will go down in World Series lore if it somehow makes all the difference in the outcome. Of course, it would've been more dramatic if game 7 ended that way, but still...
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 09:31 am
For sure.

I'm torn about the win. Part of me thinks it was a real cheap win. The other part of me thinks the Angels still had a chance to get out of the inning but couldn't execute... tough break.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:13 am
I watched the replay a ton and didn't see the ball touch the ground. The second base ump said the ball changed direction but the home plate umpire was blocked from view.

Baseball is the only sport with no instant replay, so these things will happen.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 10:40 am
The front page of today's Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-10/19968819.jpg
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:24 am
That second image is damn close. What did the article say about it?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 11:39 am
Quote:
CALLING ALL EXPERTS
A forensic scientist. A physicist. A judge. How would THEY get to the bottom of the 3rd out that wasn't?

By James Janega
Tribune staff reporter
Published October 14, 2005

If you were a crime scene investigator officiating the game, you would have wanted to seal off home plate.

You would search behind the plate for impression evidence, for what is called "compression tool marks"--but which really just means "where the ball hit," if it did.

You would inspect the ball for striations and dirt particles and compare their refractive index with soil minerals. You'd hunt for more video documentation.

Still, said Mick Kopina, group supervisor in the microscopy and trace unit at the Illinois State Police Crime Lab, "If I was the catcher responsible for the third out, if you don't hear him say `out,' your job is to stand up and tag the guy."

But it was no crime scene, at least as far as Chicago sports fans were concerned. In the clutch situation was plate umpire Doug Eddings. And still in question is what happened.

In viewing the replays of what may become the Zapruder film of baseball, fans accustomed to excruciating observation and difficult decisions in their own professions could agree Thursday only on the basics of the play:

The call setting up a ninth-inning White Sox victory in Game 2 of the American League Championship Series against the visiting Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim belonged to Eddings alone, and it was as tough as they come.

Had they been there behind the plate, a federal judge would have cried for more evidence, an economist would have sought a less stressful decision, and physicists would see in it an experiment that needed to be re-created again and again and again.

The confusion begins in a confluence of regulations, Major League Baseball rules 6.05 (b) and 6.09 (b), bound now to be remembered by a generation of sports enthusiasts. A catcher must have "legally caught" the third strike in flight; a batter becomes a runner when a third strike is not caught and first base is unoccupied. But was the third strike caught in flight, or not?

U.S. District Judge Marvin Aspen, forming an opinion on "kind of prima facie evidence," decided that "the umpire's call was correct."

"Having said that, everything occurred in a split second. And even the slow-motion camera doesn't really capture totally what happened," Aspen added.

The judge said the primary evidence was the videotape and photographs. But if the play came up in his courtroom, he'd want to assess the demeanor of its key witnesses--Eddings, Sox batter A.J. Pierzynski and Angels catcher Josh Paul. He'd want to see physical evidence before making a decision.

"And of course, if that were to come up in my courtroom, it would be my obligation to tell the attorneys where my sympathies lie," Aspen said. "How can one live in the city of Chicago in 2005, when we haven't had a baseball team of any accomplishment for decades, and say that you're not a White Sox fan?" Aspen also gives a passing grade to Eddings.

"There are close calls, somebody has to make them, and I feel a lot of empathy with the umpire because he is dealing with a close call," Aspen said. "And no matter what he did, somebody would have been unhappy with him."

The Official Major League Baseball Rules Book has 104 pages. The slightly thicker "The Physics of Baseball," by Yale physicist Robert K. Adair, has 142 pages, but in an e-mail Adair said the rules mattered more than physics Wednesday night, and he was stuck thinking about who saw the play closest, and how they interpreted what they saw.

"From the TV replays, I would say we are talking about quarter-inch," he said. "Did the ball touch the ground as it went into Josh Paul's glove or didn't it? Only God knows. I note that there are physical limits to the acuity of the TV camera or the third base umpire and those limits are of the order of quarter-inch."

No one could be sure, Adair concluded.

But Adair (who admitted to being a White Sox fan) said he was impressed Pierzynski ran. "Remarkable!" he wrote. "Most batters would have just sat down."

University of Chicago sports economist Allen Sanderson noted that umpires' decisions are made quickly and under enormous pressure. And Eddings picked the more stressful of two options.

"The low-cost, easy way out would be to watch the body language of the catcher and the batter," Sanderson said. "If I had to make that split second decision, I would have looked at the body language of the catcher and the batter. It would have been `I swung and missed'; `I caught the ball.' And that would have been it."

As a Sox fan, he has rationalized away what he thought at first was a bad call. "The Angels allowed a stolen base. Then the Angels' pitcher hung a ball to [Joe] Crede on the 0-2 count," Sanderson said. "Those other two things weren't a judgment call."

Fermilab cosmologist Edward W. "Rocky" Kolb saw pitfalls in such outside perceptions. Sox fans will see the call one way, Angels fans the other.

"When you try to analyze data from a very complicated experiment, it's very easy to pull out of it what you want to," he said. "The hardest thing to pull out of it is something you're not looking for or something you don't want to see."

He added: "I would say as a completely objective White Sox fan, it's clear the ball was dropped."

The play, he guesses, will be talked about for years unless the Angels win the series.

"That could have been the first time quantum physics has entered a baseball game," he mused, before suggesting after some rumination that the ball was both caught and not caught.

Two opposite things can happen at once in quantum physics. But not in baseball.

- - -

Did the umpire drop the ball?

Wednesday's controversial play falls under 6.05(b) and 6.09(b) of Major League Baseball's official rules:

6.05 A batter is out when ... (b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher; "legally caught" means in the catcher's glove before the ball touches the ground.

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when ... (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out; when a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. If, however, he actually reaches the dugout or dugout steps, he may not then attempt to go to first base and shall be out.

----------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0510140280oct14,1,7314437.story?coll=chi-news-hed
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 12:00 pm
So the experts are unsure as well. In that case... we won... to bad... better luck next time :wink:
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 12:33 pm
What's interesting to me is the issue of whether the ump is somehow supposed to indicate the ball's in play. I've seen articles on ESPN.com and in today's NY Times in which various experts say two different things about it.

The gist seems to be that, in practice, it's like an appeal play. The ump does nothing until a player acts. In this case, the batter trotting down to first..
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 01:24 pm
I'm with you D'art.

I'm sure I would be saying the opposite if I were an Angels fan, but, all Josh Paul had to do was tag him or throw to first base. AJ acted in a split second and the Angels failed to re-act.

Of course the other question is, did the Ump act by raising his fist in front of him to call him out? He says no. Paul says he not only motioned out but called him out.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 01:36 pm
J_B wrote:
The front page of today's Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2005-10/19968819.jpg


I think the ball hit the ground. Why the hell else would it be higher in the third image then in the second? He's not bringing his glove up yet, but the ball is higher up and not actually "in" his glove in that third image.

Oh really? Well, when I look at these pictures, I think the ball didn't hit the ground, but is actually just rolling up his glove a litte bit in the third picture. It is obvious that it didn't hit the ground, STUPID!

Oh yeah? Well you're wrong, jackass!

Oh yeah? well why don't you go f*ck yourself, you blind piece of ****!

What!!?? How DARE you, you pig f*cker?!

<Kicky jumps on Kicky, wrestling match ensues...>
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 05:44 pm
i agree with kicky...

the catcher was so sure he'd caught it that he didn't bother tagging the batter.

from now on, catchers will make that tag no matter what...
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2005 09:47 pm
One of the very first things you learn as a catcher in little league is to tag the batter to ensure that he is out, and the play is over.

Apparently, Josh Paul has forgotten this fundamental of baseball.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 06:27 am
the change in direction can be attributed to the ball rolling up the catcher's mitt after it hit the webbing...
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 08:27 am
Well, no doubt about last nights win. Good pitching beats good hitting.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 08:52 am
er, jp...


SOX WIN!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 09:08 am
get excited. This is a remarkable team. 4 complete games? It boggles the mind.
Settle back for a great series. Edgar's 'stros against jp's Sox
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 09:13 am
Oh... man...

I don't even know how to react. This is uncharted territory for me. It is going to be a long wait untill Saturday.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 09:22 am
Congrats, man. It's the lifetime Sox fans who deserve this one. Mr B is in that group as well. He was born in 1960, one year after the last pennant. He's waited a lifetime for this.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 10:34 am
mumble, mumble, er, congrats...

Smile

hey, that bullpen sure is well-rested for the Series!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:42:08