logo Sign In

MLB — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
I think its been since 1917 that either Chicago team has won the World Series. Well, it would help if the ChiSox wouldn't throw anymore World Series


I would have to agree with you on that one. Funny thing is, when I was coming back from Florida a couple weeks ago, I was watching "Eight Men Out" on my portable DVD player. Great flick.

And, my wife called it. While all the fans and sportscasters in Chicago were railing about the Angels busy travel schedule thinking it would give the Sox the advantage in game 1, my wife said that they were depending too much on that little tidbit and it would bite the Sox in the ass. And she was right. Sox down 3-2 in game 1.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
what is everyone's opinon the controversial third strike call in the 9th of game 2 of the ALCS? Did the catcher catch the ball or did it hit the ground first? did the ump give the right hand signals?
Author
Time
Post link
To be honest, I didn't see it. More details or a link to video of it on the Web?
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
He was out. He knew it, the catcher knew it, the Angels knew it. That's why he started going back to the dugout, but when the Umpire couldn't make a good call he figured he might as well giving it a try and it paid off. The Ump was just very confused and messed up both calls and signals.
Author
Time
Post link
Here's what MLB.com has to say about it...

"So when is a strikeout not an out?

When the ball touches the ground, in which case the catcher must either tag the runner or throw him out at first base to make it count."

According to them, the pitch was in the dirt in which case the catcher should have either tagged the runner or thrown him out. He didn't. No play was made so the ump couldn't make a call, could he? Unless there is some vital piece of information I'm missing. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
#1, not all agreed that the ball hit the dirt.

#2 some believe that the Ump signaled not only that they had been a strike, but that he also signaled that the batter was out. Which why the catcher says didn't tag him.
Author
Time
Post link
Didn't know about #1.

Regarding #2... the ump said that if you go back and watch the entire game and his signal calling, you will see that it is no different in that play than throughout the rest of the game. Mike Scioscia's complaint was that the hand signal made by the ump was akin to what everyone else uses to say that a batter is out, while the ump says that the signal was the same as how he called the rest of the game. I dunno.

But you can't do anything about it. This will just go down as one of those ubercontroversial plays. Why argue it? It's set in stone. Controversial plays have happened throughout professional sports. If Instant Replay doesn't exist for baseball, why worry? They can't recall it.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
I agree they are not going to reverse it, but they could change to rules to require that the Ump give clearer signals in that situation. Or they could do away with the rule the allows the batter run to first if the catcher drops the 3rd strike.

that brings up another good question, what do you think about instant replay for baseball?
Author
Time
Post link
instant replay for baseball is a big no, imho. it would slow down an already steady pace for a great sport. plus the arguing with umps is one of the best part of the game. especially since players can argue with them and everyone knows nothing can happen. the umps word is gold. end of story.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricardo
instant replay for baseball is a big no, imho. it would slow down an already steady pace for a great sport. plus the arguing with umps is one of the best part of the game. especially since players can argue with them and everyone knows nothing can happen. the umps word is gold. end of story.



clear it would have to be used in limited situations. You obviously couldn't use it to call balls and strikes. But why is arguing with the umps perfered to better acuracy with calls?

I mean if game 7 of the World Series came down to a call by the ump and the replay clearly showed that the ump was wrong, wouldn't you want them to be able to use the replay and get the call right?

Author
Time
Post link
not really. instant replays in baseball are great for audience participation, but as far as umpire calls, it would get in the way of the game. if an ump's call is wrong, then we could hold it against the ump come next season, but we have to respect the ump's call.

plus i have to go back to the fact that it will slow the game down even furthur. it would be used for all sorts of applications that just aren't needed in this game.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricardo
but as far as umpire calls, it would get in the way of the game.

how?

Originally posted by: ricardo
if an ump's call is wrong, then we could hold it against the ump come next season, but we have to respect the ump's call.


tell that to the Angels and the team in my previous example that lost game seven of the World Series to a blown call by the ump.


As for slowing down that game, as I said before, we need limit its use so that it wouldn't slow the game down too much.
Author
Time
Post link
just a small price we have to pay. it would ruin the spirit of the game if we had umps looking at instant replays whenever the coaches wanted to (even if it was regulated like the NFL)

Author
Time
Post link
ruin the game? I they should set it up so it would only be use once or twice a game. I don't see how that would ruin the game. And why would the coaches decide when to look at the replay? Why not have a replay offical like they do with college football? And I wouldn't losing a playoff game on blown call by the ump a small price.
Author
Time
Post link
congrads to the White Soxs! They are going to the World Series!!!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricardo
just a small price we have to pay. it would ruin the spirit of the game if we had umps looking at instant replays whenever the coaches wanted to (even if it was regulated like the NFL)


Yeah, I've gotta admit, in the NRL in Australia (National Rugby League), every call used to come down to the referee or the linesmen. Nowadays, we have video referees as well, and for almost every try (Americans read: 'touchdown'), they defer the call to the video referee. In particular, this occurs in important games like the State of Origin (which is considered by many to be the ultimate competition in Rugby League) or the Grand Final. It's been abused to the point where referees who don't want to be responsible for a big/tough call can defer the call to a nameless man behind a screen, who doesn't have to take any responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracy of his call.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
Well obviously I said before, ways would have to found to limit its use.
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, congrats to the ChiSox.

And I agree with almost everyone here that Instant Replay in the MLB would be a bad thing because it would make the game take that much longer than it already does. I hate sitting through the IR challenges in the NFL. They take friggin' forever.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
i feel for the whitesox. they haven't won a series since the 50s. i'd rather see them win than the astros.

Author
Time
Post link
My friends and I, none of whom are White Sox fans, want them to win because it will put pressure on the Cubs organization to work their asses off for a title. Before, they always had the Red Sox and White Sox to fall back on. No more Red Sox after last year. Hopefully, no more White Sox after this year. No more excuses either.

But I also want them to win for the sake of Chicago which hasn't seen a baseball championship since 1917.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Bossk

And I agree with almost everyone here that Instant Replay in the MLB would be a bad thing because it would make the game take that much longer than it already does. I hate sitting through the IR challenges in the NFL. They take friggin' forever.


If it were only used in limited fashion like once or twice a game, surely it wouldn't extend the game too much. And only takes a minute and a half to do a review in the NFL, not forever.