I think this is important about pattern recognition with Paul. How many strikeouts in his life has he caught strike 3, and this has clearly never happpened? This is not some trick like jumping up and down after you fouled a ball near your foot. It cost him nothing to tag Pierzynski, and nothing could have been easier. He just, in his mind, clearly caught the ball, and the reflex reaction after that is to roll the ball out to the mound. In the sense that if Paul had tagged Pierzynski, the inning would have been over, he made a mistake by rolling out the ball. But, no reasonable catcher in the same situation would have tagged him because the catcher knew he caught the ball, so blaming Paul is like blaming someone who causes an accident doing something that other people have done safely 1,000,000 times before.

I have to disagree with part of that. I was in the stands. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say we assumed the inning was over when Pierzynski swung and missed. No one was looking at the umpire's gestures. I'm willing to be the players input was the swing and miss and not the ump's fist.

M of L, I'd agree with you if Paul's glove wasn't resting on the ground when he caught the ball.

"The fielders on the Angels... saw the exact same call on Pierzynski their model told them the batter was out."

No. The fielders were walking off the field b/c John Paul headed resolutely to the dugout immediately after he caught the ball.

"Any other White Sox hitter would not have built the correct pattern recognizer, and the game would have been decided in extra innings."

I have a very hard time believing this. Hitters know very well that they should run to 1st if there is any chance the ball hit dirt before glove. I'll buy an argument that A.J. was more likely to run to 1st than any other Sox (b/c of his trained auditory model), but I seriously doubt he would have been the only Sox batter to run to 1st in that situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you ever seen a catcher catch a ball and then tag the runner? A common one is a caught foul tip, where the catcher will hold the ball up for the umpire to inspect, but on a swing and miss, it is not common for the catcher to tag the runner "just in case." The quotes about the umpire saying when the ball is in the dirt give further credence to the idea that only in that situation would a catcher even consider tagging someone after he caught the ball. I imagine the umpire did not do that in this case, so Paul had no reason to suspect a ball he caught, even near the dirt (how many sliders/splitters have been caught near the dirt, and how many times has the catcher then randomly tagged the runner?) would require him to tag the batter. I would argue that 95% of major league catchers would have acted just like Paul, and I have trouble blaming him for doing something that everyone else would do in his situation.

M of L, yes, I've seen many catchers tag the batter as a matter of course if their mitt touched the ground on astrike three. It's not "randomly" tagging the batter. It's making sure the ump makes the right call.

M of L, when ESPN was showing earlier replays of Eddings they showed a play where AJ was catching and the batter swung through. No possible controversy on whether the ball was in the dirt and AJ went the three steps needed to tag him. It happens all the time.

Very interesting take on it...

This is a very interesting take as most peoploe involved SHOULD have done something else to prevent it. However, the call was horrendous and handed the game to the White Sox.

Then a far even worse thing happened. Tim "I'm an Idiot" McCarver suggested that baseball needed instant replay to prevent this.

Random question about last night's game. Over at the Cub Reporter a few people mentioned the "bad call" at second when Crede got doubled off.

I was curious about thoughts of any readers? I saw one replay that I thought clearly showed the throw beating the runner. Thoughts?

Earlier in the game when Buerhle strikes out Molina (the at bat where his bat lands in the field), AJ catches the ball and tags Molina to verify the 3rd out.

Atleast, that is what I've been told. I don't have Tivo.

dave, Crede was clearly out on replay. Close play, but out.

Mike, how exactly is handing a two out, runner at first situation to the Sox, handing them the game? Especially after Escobar had Crede down 0-2.

This was a bad call - but why didn't the Angels take time-out at the mound and concentrate on the last out.

2nd was stolen- then Crede gets a solid hit and the Sox's score the winning run.

Compare this with the Barman Cub incident - a situation where something out of the ordinary happens. One team takes advantage, one team gets flustered.

So who has the momentum or motivation now for Game 3?

in no way did the call hand the game to the White Sox. Joe Crede came to the plate next and was in the same situation he was in the night before when he struck out to end the game. He had 2 strikes on him and Escobar hung a pitch that even I could have hit off the wall. Angels could have just as easily gotten Crede out and then gone on to win or lose in extra innings.

Did the Angels have anyone up in the pen? i'm sorta surprised Scioscia didn't bring in another pitcher, taking the time to get the team settled down and focused.

if the ball was in the dirt, then why did eddings bother doing the 'no hit' motion?

it's a foul ball or live ball.

I've been an amateur umpire for 5+ years now and a former player, and here's my take...

Eddings did what many other umps do--signalled "no contact", which is important in the event there is a foul tip which is not cleanly caught. This was the horizontal motion with the right arm. Then he signalled "strike three" with a pump of the right arm. This is the standard universal call for a swinging strike.

Part of the confusion was that many players, observers and the FOX idiots interpreted that arm pump to mean "you're out". Good or bad, the signal for a swinging strike is the *same* as that for "out". Look at any ump at 1st or 3rd when they are asked on a check swing: whether the call was on strike 1,2, or 3, they will signal "yes, he swung" with an arm pump, and "no swing" with the "safe" motion.

Still, I find it hard to believe that Eddings could have seen if the ball touched the ground or not, based on his vantage point and the fact that Paul's glove was turned downward. A lot of times umps will make this judgement on sound, and some will even say "No catch" just to be clear. But not all of them do.

Lastly, I doubt if Pierzynski saw that there was not a clean catch, as his eyes were looking out towards 2nd/CF, nor did he use any previously accrued statistical knowledge to prompt his 360 dash to first. He probably heard either Raines or Cora tell him to run.