Pierzynski strikes out, and Paul runs off the field. Pierzynski runs to first and is called safe. The replay shows Paul caught the ball. What bothers me is that the umpire made what looked like an out call on the play.
Update: Ozuna is pinch running. He steals second.
Update: Crede lines an 0-2 pitch off the left field wall to score Ozuna and give the White Sox a 2-1 win. The first call against the Angels in the post season leads to a defeat.
Update: The broadcast crew notices the out call after the strike out, too.
Update: Pierzynski says he didn’t hear the umpire call out.
Update: One of the commenters made the point that what appears to be an out call is Eddings’ strike call. However, he stuck his right arm out first, then brought it in for the fist pump. That looked to me like he called the strike with the arm out, then pumped the first to call him out. I’d like to hear what the catcher Paul has to say about it.
Update: The Baseball Tonight crew makes a good point. Pierzynski headed to first because he didn’t hear an out call. Paul had been in long enough and caught enough strike outs to know how Eddings called a strike out. A.J. didn’t hear what he should have heard, so he headed to first. So what did Paul hear or not hear?
Update: Eddings just had a news conference. He says he never verbally called the batter out. The supervisor said a batter is not called out if he starts toward the dugout. He’s not out until he reaches the dugout steps.
According to one of the questions, Paul says umpires usually say, “No catch!” when the ball hits the ground. Eddings didn’t do that. From that, I take it that Eddings didn’t say, “out,” either.
The umps are also claiming that from the replays they saw, the ball changed direction. As Harold Reynolds pointed out, it can change direction and still be in the glove.
One reporter pointed out that Eddings’ strike call looks like an out call, and if anyone had pointed that out to him before. He said no, he never had a problem with it until now.
Has anyone seen an interview with Paul?
Update: They’re interviewing Paul next on Sports Center.
Update: That was a useless interview. They didn’t ask him what he heard from the ump!
Update: Good work by Drew in the comments. He writes:
Eddings contradicts himself….. on the batter before AJ, Aaron Rowand, when the ball got loose after he swung at strike 3, Eddings points to the ball, and ONLY RINGS HIM UP AFTER PAUL TAGS HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ringing him up IS NOT his normal strike 3 mechanics, as proved by the very batter before.
I just watched it on Tivo. Rowand swings and misses. Eddings right arm goes out straight. Paul tags Rowand, and Eddings pumps his fist!
Baseball Tonight showed some of Eddings’ earlier strike three calls. When Dye struck out in the 5th he stuck out his arm and then gave the out sign, exactly as he did in the 9th.
They also showed an instance of a swing and a miss and Molina dropping the ball and Eddings did exactly the same thing. Arm out, then the out sign when Molina made the tag. If the out sign is part of his regular strike 3 mechanic then in this instance he should have gone arm out, out sign then out sign again on the tag. So it seems to me his strike 3 mechanic is arm out then out sign. If there is no tag needed he makes the out sign right away, if a tag is needed he waits until the tag is made.
It doesn’t make sense to have the out sign be part of his strike 3 mechanic on a dropped third strike becuase the batter is not out yet. I think he is just covering his ass.
So it seems to me that he definitely called AJ out which makes me believe he was somehow influenced by the fact that AJ ran to first. If that’s the case it is ridiculous. The fact that he admitted he has changed calls based on the reacctions of others is one of the dumbest things an official can say. If that’s the case he needs some serious retraining.
Will — You can’t be serious.
Whether or not some people misinterpreted the Edding’s signal does not matter. Eddings did not call him out. If he did, why would he let Pierzynski run to first? The signal came well after Paul had walked away and rolled the ball to the mound, so it had nothing to do with Paul’s actions.
I don’t really like either team, but that was the worst call I’ve ever seen. I just called MLB in NYC (212-931-7800) to request that this call should be reversed, and the game continued top of the 10th, tied 1-1. Selig can fix this, and he should.
But according to the posters above, Eddings did call AJ out when he made the hand signal for the out. I’m going on what other people have said here, but in my opinion, if he made the out signal, there’s no need for Paul to tag a batter who is already out. It does matter what people interpret Eddings’ signal as, since he’s the HOME PLATE UMPIRE – if he makes the out motion, the batter should be out.
This is like an outfielder catching a fly ball, the second base umpire pumping his fist to signal an out, the outfielding then dropping the ball, and then the first first base umpire calling the batter safe at first.
In this case, the inning is over. That they continued to play shouldn’t count, since there were three outs in the inning.
Scott, you’re right to ask “why would he let Pierzynski run to first” after he made the error. If he knew he made a mistake making the out call, he should have said something – for instance “NO CATCH!!”, which would then tell Paul to throw the ball to first.
By the way, today is the 19th anniversary of the Donnie Moore game.
You know what lost the game for the Angels? Floating a cookie to Crede on an 0-2 count. If you can’t get an out of a jam with 2 outs and a 0-2 count, you don’t deserve the win.
For anyone with MLB.tv, take a look at the Royals-Angels game back on April 8th of this year. In the bottom of the first inning (right around 15:45 into the video), Darin Erstad strikes out and the ball gets away from the catcher but Erstad is retired at first.
Why does this matter? Well it’s because the HP umpire in that game was Doug Eddings and on that very play the only motion he makes is sticking out his right arm but NEVER pumps his fist.
After watching the video of that, you MUST ASSUME that the fist signified an out. An umpire doesn’t suddenly change his motions within a season. Now I understand you can’t protest a game because of the judgment of an umpire, but this now begs the question of if you can protest based on the issue that Eddings signaled an out. Now it’s time for Eddings to admit he made a mistake and MLB to do something (at least admit it was the wrong call and misleading gesture) about this whole mess.
Michael, Paul never saw the gesture. The gesture doesn’t really enter into it. Paul can’t be deceived by something he doesn’t see.
Thanks Drew, I was at that game in ’86. I was also there in ’02 when they won it all. To be honest, bad calls are part of the game and this nonesense of instant replay or replaying the final innings of this game are insane. If Washburn makes the first play of the game, there would not be this controversy. Angels win 1-0 and go up 2-0 on the series. Truth is, they played a sloppy game, didn’t hit and should have gotten over this abomination of a fiasco in the 9th. Escobar hung a splitter and the rest will be decided… As far as this blue (Edding) goes, he needs to be replaced. I saw the replays of his mechanics from previous strike three calls and it was all the same motion. This guy needs retraining. As far as Chicago making it to the series, best of luck. I’m over it and I’ll be there Friday night screaming from the nose-bleeds on top of the foul-pole in left.
Paul never saw the ump signal out, but Im sure his teammates did, and Im sure Paul saw them running off the field
Doug Eddings has not proven in his 6 years umpiring with the big boys that he has the skills to make decisive calls. I am disappointed and a bit shocked that MLB would place Eddings in such a crucial position. Eddings history is shady in making clean calls and now he is forever embraced in one of baseball’s most controversial series win
can anyone say “blacksox 2005”? This was posted on another blog site…Ouch!
For anyone with MLB.tv, take a look at the Royals-Angels game back on April 8th of this year. In the bottom of the first inning (right around 15:45 into the video), Darin Erstad strikes out and the ball gets away from the catcher but Erstad is retired at first.
That’s not all — the reason the ball got away from Buck is because Erstad’s bat knocked Buck’s glove a foot and a half up the baseline. It was catcher’s interference, and it’s the easiest call ever, and Eddings missed it. Apparently he thinks John Buck routinely tries to catch pitched balls by throwing his glove toward third base*. I know that CI can be a tough call, but when the catcher’s glove is off of his hand, that’s pretty strong evidence that it took place.
He’s just an awful umpire, and what he’s doing umpiring the 4-7 most important games in the American League is beyond me.
*Of course, given that it was the Royals, maybe this is how they teach their catchers to receive the ball.
Allow me to correct myself … it’s a different strikeout in that game that had the missed CI call, not the one referred to before. Sorry …
“can anyone say ‘blacksox 2005’? This was posted on another blog site…Ouch!”
Oh, please. Why would you post something like that even if you are “quoting” someone else? It makes NO sense. Yes, the White Sox were trying to throw this game…by winning it. The White Sox are forever dirtied by a bad call by an ump. It is all their fault. They should forfeit the entire series forthwith, dirty cheating scum, and will receive lifetime bans. Crikey, get a grip.
On that same April 8 game, you can see Eddings miss an obvious CI about 1 hour, 37 minutes in … the guy’s just a mess.
Watching the game on MLB.tv, Eddings pumps his fist for every called strike.
At any rate, if the Angels can’t take a five game series with home field advantage then they don’t deserve to win. Next two matchups favor the Angels. If the Sox win one of them, Sox win in 6. If not, Angels in 7.
Prior comment should read, every called and every third strike. I’m not sure what’s up with the flat hand gesture. I’m guessing the out call for Eddings is verbal. Sloppy mechanics regardless.
Scott has it right – the Angels needed to play better. Scioscia said not to focus on the one call, but look at what a great game it was, and that they lost because they didn’t play the way they should. Maybe the extra travel caught up with them tonight. It would be kinda silly to replay the game (or go back to Chicago and start extra innings). Just put this in the books and forget about it – and hope the Angels win all three at home so we don’t have to worry about it! (See you at the game, Scott – I’m in section 417.
On the one hand….Eddings blew this by not making it obvious to everybody involved what was going on. The fact that the play turned on Paul misinterpreting the umpire is the fault of the umpire. IMHO.
On the other hand….Crede still won the game. This STL fan will never forgive !@#$ing Denkinger, but the Cards still blew the rest of game 6 and the whole of game 7.
The Angels still got a split. They ought to be happy, since they have de facto home-field advantage for the rest of the series.
In the News
Wags Link: Philadelphia Daily News | 10/13/2005 | Phils determined to close Wagner deal. We made a proposal, said Amaro, the Phillies’ assistant general manager who is handling negotiations after Montgomery, the team president, fired GM Ed Wade on Mond…
The real issue is whether the catcher made a clean catch of the ball, not whatever signals the umpire made or didn’t make. Whether Pierzynski should be allowed first doesn’t depend on whether the ump signalled something or didn’t signal something, or whether he said something or didn’t say something.
All that is irrelevant. Whether Pierzynski should have been allowed first depends on whether the catcher caught the ball cleanly before it hit the dirt.
The replays suggest Paul did catch the ball cleanly but aren’t absolutely conclusive. So it’s possible that the umps got the call right.
At any rate there’s no way you could overturn the decision and replay the game from that point forward. Otherwise, you’d be replaying every game where an ump made a disputable judgment call.
And, no, I’m not a fan of either team so I really don’t care who won.
By the way, the Angels better have some extra security along the right field line on Friday.
casey,
You’re right, the ultimate question is, DId Paul catch the ball? But the problem is, it appears, based on the way he called strikeouts earlier in the game, that he did call AJ out which then means he was influenced by the fact that AJ ran to first and then decided to call him safe. Obviously umps need to be decisive, not reactive.
Casey – is this your belief, or is this in the rules? I would think that when an umpire signals the end of an inning, then that’s the end of it. In football, once a ref blows a play dead, nothing else can happen at all… EVEN IF he mistakenly blew it dead.
How long should catchers stay crouched with a third out strike three in their glove? Clearly, the umpire signaling an out to end the inning is not indicative that the inning is over. And clearly, the batter leaving the batter’s box is not indicative of the at-bat and inning being over either.
Mike, when Eddings pumped his fist on every called strike one call, were those batters out?
Potentially relevant rules:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/umpire_9.jsp
9.02
(a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final.
5.07
When three offensive players are legally put out, that team takes the field and the opposing team becomes the offensive team.
6.04
A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner.
6.05
A batter is out when_ (a) His fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder; (b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher; “Legally caught” means in the catcher’s glove before the ball touches the ground. It is not legal if the ball lodges in his clothing or paraphernalia; or if it touches the umpire and is caught by the catcher on the rebound. If a foul tip first strikes the catcher’s glove and then goes on through and is caught by both hands against his body or protector, before the ball touches the ground, it is a strike, and if third strike, batter is out. If smothered against his body or protector, it is a catch provided the ball struck the catcher’s glove or hand first.
Game 2 comments from around the horn
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but at the end of the game AJ said the same thing happened to him when he was with the Giants. The batter tried to lay a bunt down and AJ trapped it for strike three, and never tagged him. The batter was walking towards the dugout, but then realized what happened, and started to jet to first. I didn’t think the guy is out until he touches the first step of the dugout. Didn’t the crew chief say the same thing in the post-game interviews? Regardless. This was a bad call that gifted this game to the White Sox. And for all those who think it’s fair to head out to the ballpark to continue this game in the 10th this morning — how is that fair?
If you believe in Karma, this call will come back to haunt the White Sox anyway.
Game 2 comments from around the horn
This call may have helped the Angels in the long term. The last thing the Angels bullpen needed was an extra inning game. Especially as they’d already used three pitchers out of the pen.
Eddings’ decision was final: Pierzynski was allowed first.
The real question is whether his decision was correct. It probably wasn’t. The replays seem to indicate that Paul made a clean catch. But the replays aren’t absolutely conclusive.
It’s that simple. Eddings’ made a judgment call that Pierzynski could stay on first. That call stands, according to the rule another poster quoted above.
The correctness of the call can be questioned based on the replays, but these aren’t crystal-clear on the decisive issue of whether Paul made a clean catch.
There’s one angle that shows the ball making an upward movement. I don’t think it’s possible to tell whether this is due to the ball hitting the ground or the ball simply moving in the glove. Still, Paul’s glove is on the ground. You have to tag the batter in that situation regardless.
If the batter is not out until he touches the top step of the dugout, what happens when his glove is brought out to him and he runs out to the field? Should this out never be recorded? Or is it the next inning that the out is recorded, when the opposing team makes three outs and he finally goes to the dugout?
It seems to me that the statement is basically Eddings’ way of covering his reversal of his out call – The call was clearly an out gesture until AJ ran to first and then Eddings changed his mind and reversed his call.
If he can’t make a clear, unambiguous, consistent gesture to mean out – he should never be allowed to umpire an important game.
‘Josh Paul immediately flipped it because he knew he caught it.’ Wrong. He did it as a convincer. He lost.
‘Geez, that’s right. Once Pierzynski steps out of the batter’s box away from first, he ought to be called out if (and only if) the ball is in play.’ also wrong. That applies only to direct plays to avoid the tag/out. Otherwise, every player who singles could be called out.
Why would he do that as a convincer? Pierszinski was still standing there when he threw it back. Pierszinski deciding to take first — THAT was a convincer move, and evidently, one that worked.
Eddings should not be umpiring the rest of this series. Not that I’m concerned for his safety. I don’t think fans will get violent. However, MLB should realize his lousy umpiring will end up being the focal point. As it is, Beuhrle pitched a helluva game and no one knows because the ump changed his mind after calling p-ski out. If Eddings had to call any close plays in LA it would get ugly.
Game 2 comments from around the horn
The ball bounced. Just ask Anna Kournikova and her sports bra. WHITE SOX RULE!!!!