David, I think you're largely right in this post. But many of the Angels were in motion to the dugout before the fist-pump. I think they were basing their actions on Paul's movement as much as anything. In their long baseball experience, it looked like the inning was over.

I think it's a big assumption to say the fielders were leaving based on the umps gesture. As Peder said, they started in as soon as they saw the swing and miss. Regardless, there was no one in position to retreive the ball after Paul rolled it toward the mound.

What gets me is if the ump had actually called A.J. out, he'd simply call him out again. I don't buy this "oops, A.J.'s running to first, I must have been mistaken" argument. Eddings, like most umps isn't a guy to change his mind. When Konerko argued that he'd checked his swing (forgot to review that, looked like a bad call from where I sat at a 45 degree angle behind and to the left of home plate) Eddings was having none of it. Seems to me that if he'd called A.J. out, he'd be having none of A.J. running to first.

To clarify: I'm not saying you (David) are making the "oops" argument. I've just seen a lot of it around. I don't think A.J. conned the ump.

Just read the Verducci article and I'm wondering why you didn't quote this: "I agree with Reiker. I saw a slight change of direction. I would say it bounced. Bottom line: in no way was it obvious that Paul caught the ball cleanly."

"Eddings, like most umps isn't a guy to change his mind... Seems to me that if he'd called A.J. out, he'd be having none of A.J. running to first."

But he did the exact same thing he does in other cases when this happens and he wants to call the batter out. I don't see how you could argue that he didn't call the batter out, given the video evidence of how this guy has umpired previous at-bats.

Probably because a change of direction shows nothing. The problem is that there is absolutely NO dirt kicked up.

You don't have to go back to a previous game. The previous batter will do. Aaron Rowand struck out right before Pierzynski and Eddings clearly kept his arm extended until the Paul tagged Rowand at which time he pumped his fist to signal the out.

Eddings makes no sense. He says "when I pump my fist it means strike, not an out." So if batter swings on 3d strike in dirt and he points his hand for strike (long understood to signify a strike), then supposedly he pumps his fist (long understood to mean an OUT), but he contends it is just a continuation of the signal for a strike.

Now let's suppose the catcher scoops up the ball and tags the batter. Eddings wants us to believe that he would call him out by pumping his fist a 2d time.

IS THIS ANYWAY TO RUN THE GAME?!!

Fist pump means out. Except when it doesn't. So ballplayers, remember -- fist pump doesn't mean out unless I want it to, in which case it does mean out. Unless I change my mind, or it's the first Wednesday after the second Tuesday of the month, or I'm constipated, or I have a sore elbow. Whatever.

I believe he's stuck on stupid.

What idiot came up with the great idea of having umpires use whatever different signals they want to indicate strike, ball, safe and out? No one thought it might be a good idea to avoid confusion by having all umps use the same signals?

Shawn, Dan, et. al., but there's also the verbal element. Paul must have heard the verbal element on Rowand. Apparantly he wasn't paying attention on Pierzinski.

Dirt isn't necessarily going to be kicked back toward the camera where it would be visible. I hate to split this hair but you brought it up. The ball movement happens withing the confines of the glove. That's what makes it impossible to tell if it hit the glove or the ground. If indeed the ball did hit the ground the dirt is most likely going to be sprayed toward the catcher, and within the glove, out of view of the camera and everyone else. My belief (and it's just that, a belief) based on evidence from side angles is that it hit the glove and not the ground.

The fact remains that Paul's glove was resting quite heavily on the ground. He should have applied a tag as a matter of course. The Angels should have held Osuna on first better. Osuna still had to get a decent jump to steal second. Escobar shouldn't have hung a splitter. Even with the hung splitter, Crede still had to put it in play. And that's just what happened after the disputed call. The Angels failed to execute for 9 innings, that's why they lost, not because of a probably blown call.

"The Angels failed to execute for 9 innings, that's why they lost, not because of a probably blown call."

Then again. So did the White Sox. They executed in 9.1 innings ^^

To follow up on my last post, I certainly agree with everyone who says that Paul could not have seen Eddings' gesture - nobody can argue with that. However what really stands out to me was that Eddings didn't do anything to indicate that Paul did not catch the ball cleanly. All the evidence I've seen and heard was that Eddings made what was a typical 3rd strike call (and not his dropped third strike call which you can see in the MLB.tv clip I mentioned earlier) and did not give any verbal indication that the pitch was trapped or was "no catch". For that very reason, I can't and won't put any blame on Paul, especially since baseball players – even more so catchers – know when they've caught the ball cleanly.

Out of everything from last night, the one thing that still bugs me the most was the entire press conference from Doug Eddings and Rick Rieker. The way both of these idiots refused to admit a mistake is pathetic and truly a disgrace. As I said before, the least Eddings can do is to come out and admit he made a mistake. Lying about his "strike 3 mechanic" and being one in a million who thinks Paul didn't catch the ball, even after watching the replay, is embarrassing to the game and it's a slap in the face of us fans who know better.

Scott, Paul didn't need the verbal element on Rowand because the ball obviously bounced. On Pierzynski he didn't pay attention to any verbal element because he *knew* he caught the ball. Certainly, Paul should have tagged him to make sure but my contention is that the out was recorded when Eddings signaled the out. Once he does that does he have the ability to change his call?

I think it is undeniable, unless you are an umpire with a strong interest in denying it, that Eddings made the out call. He had a twopart call, with a delay in between. (Since I'm on the West Coast, and missing most of these games, I can't remember if it was last night or the night before, but there was an instructive example in which A White Sox batter got angry that the ump made an aggressive out call in his face after he struck out, and threw his bat down. That emphatic call was part two: he first ruled a swing, at which the batter took exception and tossed his bat down, and then, while the catcher tagged the batter and the batter turned, pumped his fist to call "out." The same two part call was made in the disputed play.

This was egregious error on the part of the Umpire, as was his failure to say "no catch" if that is the usual practice, as is claimed by many in articles today. I absolutely believe that Eddings called Pier out, then changed his mind.

But like Pinto, I looked at the rule book and couldn't find any indication that the out call by the umpire has any effect (such as stopping play.) Let's say that Eddings clearly called Pier out, everyone left the field except Pier, who strolled to first. Then Guillen comes out to argue, the umpires consult and the third base ump says "Actually I think it hit the ground." So the call at home gets reversed, right. And Pier is at first. Just like last night, even though the ump in this case does not deny that he called Pier out.

I think the Angels got jobbed, but given that plays can be appealed, ultimately the Angels don't have a legal argument (as oposed to practical) that they could rely on the Ump's call.

I think Paul caught the ball cleanly, but it was a close call and not an outrageous one to get wrong.

Pier did the right thing, Paul should have tagged him (though one reason not to is, if Paul thinks the ball might have been slightly tipped, or that the Ump might think so, tagging the runner becomes evidence that the runner is not out), and, my thought at the time, Scioscia ahould not have argued quite so long, leaving his pitcher standing on the mound his arm cooling down while his head heated up, with the winning run on in the bottom of the Ninth.

By the way, I don't agree that the emphatic arm motions of a person standing right behind you are not perceivable, even if you are not looking at the person behind you.

It looks to me as though Eddings did not change his mind but gave ambiguous evidence of his state of mind. He sent the right arm out to signal that the swing did not make contact with the ball; he pumped his fist to signal a third strike (which is usually also an out); but he did not signal verbally or otherwise that Pierzynski was out or that the ball hit the ground. He should have signalled one of those two.

Those who point to other at-bats during which Eddings delayed his fist-pump until after a tag are not providing decisive evidence. Sometimes, the timing or circumstances of the third-strike call make it a you're-out call. But sometimes, the third-strike call is just a third-strike call. And Eddings gave no evidence on this particular occasion of whether the third-strike call was also a you're-out call. Part of the problem is that many umpires are inconsistent on the timing of their calls. Many have theatrically slow third-strike-you're-out calls on some occasions and quick third-strike-you're-out calls on others.

There's a third problem with the umpires that compounds the difficulty in interpreting Eddings' call. Many umpires in many circumstances use the fist pump exclusively for the out and not for the strike, but Eddings uses the first pump for strikes.

It would be better if all umpires *quickly* used the *same*, *complete* "mechanics" to signal their calls. But they don't, and Eddings' call on this occasion was incomplete and open to interpretation. That's a shame.

But the Angels fans and sportscasters who cannot get past this unfortunate confusion are forgetting that Scioscia had pitch-run for his starting catcher, that Escobar and Paul did not even come close to preventing Osuna's stolen base, and that Escobar threw a ludicrously fat pitch on 0-2 to Crede.

Eddings allowed for some very unfortunate confusion, and the commissioner's office should make the umpires minimize the chances of such confusion. But it is not as though Eddings single-handedly gave the Sox the game.

Good summary, Eric.

If you really want someone to blame, the only two you can legitimately blame are: (1) JP, for not tagging AJ, and (2) MLB for selecting someone with such ambiguous hand signals to ump the ALCS.

Another thing to note here, AJ said he decided to run because he never heard the ump call him out. He's a catcher, he knows that you're not out until you're called out by the ump. That may not be an actual game "rule" but it was enough for AJ to recognize he can take off. Why didn't JP recognize that the words were never said? If nothing else, that should've been a clue for JP to be cautious and make the tag.

Murph, Paul hadn't been in the game very long and perhaps he hadn't had enough at bats behind the plate to recognize the lack of a verbal call.

Even Soscia says it's customary for a catcher to tag the batter when it's a low pitch. http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-simers13oct13,1,2650491.column?coll=la-headlines-sports-mlb-angels&ctrack=1&cset=true

even josh paul not saying he heard eddings call

you're out

and i guess he's supposed to know that being a catcher. and he also supposed to know you supposed to tag guys when you catch a ball on the ground like that.

but to go back to what michael said -

suppose eddings reviews the tape and he says - well, looks like the ball did NOT get trapped/hit the dirt first.

now exactly what is it you think mlb is supposed to do?

and how is it any different from them reviewing a blown call on a strike or a guy stealing a base or scoring?

The purpose of reviewing the tape has absolutely no bearing on what MLB should do.

These umpires are supposed to be the best umps in the game and are calling the postseason because they've earned this honor. I certainly can respect that. Now with that said, I don't think it's asking too much for Eddings to come out and admit he made a mistake.

I can think a similar scenario back in the 1999 ALCS when Jose Offerman was called out by Tim Tschida on Chuck Knoblauch's phantom tag. Now I'm as big of a Red Sox fan as it comes and obviously I was very upset at the bad call then. However I can at least take some comfort in Tschida owning up to his mistake and admitting he blew the call. Was I still mad about it? Sure! But I did feel a little better knowing Tschida didn't play dumb, claim a replay was inconclusive, etc. That's all I'm looking for in this whole ordeal at this point. Eddings must admit some level of wrongdoing and then we can all move on and enjoy this ALCS.

And to answer Lisa's question, this is different than a regular blown call because it's not just the blown call we're discussing in last night's game. Rather, I look at the issue of Eddings' gesture and non-verbal call on the pitch – this isn't a judgment call, it's an issue of the rules of the game (to me anyways). I also think the crew did a terrible job not getting huddled up immediately and asking what everyone saw, which is the exact opposite of how the crew in last year's ALCS reacted to controversial calls.

Can anyone explain to me why baseball has this rule in the first place?
I can understand why the infield fly rule exists because a fly ball can be intentionally dropped and create a double play. But it seems to me that this dropped 3rd strike rule serves no purpose.