Sports Columnists

By Nicholas Irwin

October 13, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

How about our good friend Doug Eddings stepping in it again? For those of you who don’t remember, this is the same guy who goaded Johnny Estrada into going nuts this summer. What a terrible umpire this guy is. The most hilarious thing was this morning ESPN was interviewing Eric Gregg about the incident. Eric Gregg should not be called on or considered an expert an umpiring for ANY REASON, unless they’re asking him the finer points of handing a team a league pennant. Although given that’s the situation we may find oursevles in, on second thought, maybe he was the right man to ask. If ever there were two umpires who deserved each other, it would be Doug Eddings and Eric Gregg.

The last thing is the question of how the hell Doug Eddings got selected to be a postseason umpire. MLB saw what happened with he and Estrada. They knew what could happened. It’s just as much their fault for letting him on the field as it is his for making a boneheaded call.

By Dan Ronan

October 13, 2005 05:25 PM | Link to this

The bottom line is: Paul should have made the tag on the Pierzynski. Every kid who has put on a catcher’s mask knows when the ball is low or on the dirt, tag the batter -runner. Nothing is hurt by that. Eddings put his right arm up to call strike 3, like he’s supposed to do. But he’s not supposed to tell the catcher, “hey you missed the ball, tag the runner or throw it to first.” Bottom line, the ball may or may not have bounced. Paul didn’t tag the runner and then he rolled the ball back into the infield. Merkle’s boner all over again. Read the rulebook, it’s all explained there.

By Benny Hyatt

October 13, 2005 05:53 PM | Link to this

The replay clearly shows the ball bouncing upward. The call could have gone either way but it seems the ump got it right. As Dan said, the catcher should have tagged the runner then the call doesn’t matter

By Dave M.

October 13, 2005 05:58 PM | Link to this

Just saw a replay of a similar play in the seventh inning with an Angel (maybe Molina) striking out swinging on a pitch in the dirt. Eddings exends the right arm out to signal strike immediately, but waits for Pierzynski to tag Molina before giving the PUNCHOUT. So his claim that his mechanics for a third stike are both the extension of his right arm and the punchout, and this does not mean the Batter is out, is just hogwash. He blew it. Period. It happens every fall. I think the other professional sports do a better job when it comes to their officiating, especially in the playoff. It’s hard to believe this is the best MLB can do.

By Michael

October 13, 2005 06:05 PM | Link to this

The Braves are done, so baseball has ceased to matter. Go Dawgs!

By Johnny

October 13, 2005 06:11 PM | Link to this

Bottom line is that Eddings needs to be fired from his job. He gas provided more than enough mistakes to get hom fired.

By David200

October 13, 2005 07:58 PM | Link to this

I think the other professional sports do a better job when it comes to their officiating, especially in the playoff. What?? You think the seven professional football officials who can’t even pick the right spot for forward progress do a better job? You think the 3 blind guys officiating professional brawlerball…er…basketball do a better job? The guys that produce a 60-75% hometeam winning record do a better job? What?? Hey, you lost any credibility with that comment.

By Joe Roman

October 13, 2005 08:05 PM | Link to this

Jeez! Get a life. The call was made. The game is over. Surely, you can find something else to write about, and yes, I AM calling you Shirley.

By geechee

October 13, 2005 09:05 PM | Link to this

Wow Mark, a twofer, this was both a great commentary on the baseball game as well as the biggest challenge to the game of baseball itself.

By burt

October 13, 2005 09:07 PM | Link to this

if you are going to have minor league umpires calling major league games then you should have instance replay. eddings is not a major league umpire an never will be. six umpires on the field and not a one saw the play. they must have been listening to their I-POD’S.

By Billy Lawless

October 13, 2005 09:15 PM | Link to this

“it sought to defend the indefensible”

It ain’t just happening in baseball. Not accepting blame is rampant througout our society, seems to me.

By JLW

October 13, 2005 09:47 PM | Link to this

Hey Joe it is a sports blog, how bout you get a life and go and read something else if talking about current sports issues bothers you.

By rob

October 13, 2005 10:37 PM | Link to this

Before you experts make complete idiots of yourselves try getting a rule book and reading it. Or you can consult an umpire from your rec association or a local high school umpire. They can shed some light on this matter. If you look at the replay the catchers mitt is turned down and it looks like he trapped the ball on the ground, therefore he did not HAVE possession of the ball.

By Jim

October 13, 2005 11:32 PM | Link to this

Doug Eddings has already proved himself to be bush league for sure… just ask Johnny Estrada.

By doc

October 13, 2005 11:39 PM | Link to this

if eddings comunicates on the field like he does in the press room i imagine he waffels there too so it makes sense to tag out all runners no matter what the circumstance.

he got deaked, got taken to the cleaners, faked out of his jock, fell for it or any other description you want to put on it. he didnt know what to call was the bottom line whether he got it right or not, he didnt have a clue based on his gobbledigoop press conference. ive heard better explanations from two year olds caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

from replays it is just about impossible to truly determine whether anything turns on a two dimensional screen, ever tried to “track” a golf ball on the screen as it leaves the club. i still never saw dirt fly which is the best determinant. he still doesnt know if he got it right but he knows he is exposed as spineless since he couldnt explain his actions and looked like the emperor with no clothes on.

By Mr C.

October 14, 2005 12:04 AM | Link to this

Folks, If you think the ball hit the dirt, you are blind. You probably need an eye glass or a plasma TV. The umpire blew it. Period.

By Vance Beckham

October 14, 2005 12:28 AM | Link to this

The umpire called a strike with the right arm exteded and moving across his body to the right side. He then gave the out sign which actually ended play for that batter. The team started leaving the field once the out was called. If not, the pitcher would have been in position to pick the rolled ball and toss to first. It should have been just like football’s whistle, whether it was the right call or not.

By Robert

October 14, 2005 12:40 AM | Link to this

The decision was correct! I saw six replays and the ball definitely hit the ground at the time of going into the catchers mit the tip of which was on the ground also. That was just a smart move by Pierzynski to take off to first base. If you want to see how these situations are resolved by a catcher watch Atlanta’s young rookie catcher. He tags every batter on a strikeout. Throwing to first base on a strikeout is also an option as most catchers are taught. The call stands and is history. Why demean an umpire because of any close decision??? It just matter!

By buddy

October 14, 2005 12:50 AM | Link to this

At first I saw the replay and no way it hits the ground, then in super slow mo I see the ball shoot upwards as the mitt engulfs it. The only way that ball goes up that fast is that it hits the ground. But the way the ump called it was wrong even though they got it right. I am confused.

By AZ

October 14, 2005 02:48 AM | Link to this

Ball hit the ground. Clearly bounced up into mitt. Game over.

By Kevin

October 14, 2005 03:04 AM | Link to this

To whom it may concern Baseball needs no instant replay…..are a sports writer tellin us how bad Ump is he not just ask chips star of catcher erik …Futhermore clown ball did hit ground after swing he can run to 1st base on call strike if No one is on the said base when did…If been a white sox man on the said base….No need to tag are throw to the base runner be out automaticly read rule book… and angels be 2-0 in series not tied 1-1 now

By Kevin

October 14, 2005 03:10 AM | Link to this

BUT AZ read what if a batter swings and cather lets ball bounce are go by on called 3 strike He can go to 1st base……..Only out if a runner is one said base then out automaticly…see different chips actor knows this on his drop 3rd strikes in season runner can run first and be there if cather no throwa Out…

By David

October 14, 2005 04:14 AM | Link to this

Wow, all this complaining about a call that was actually correct. If you can’t tell from the super slow replays that Eddings got the call right, you need help. As to Eddings press conference, he handled himself as well as anyone would that is not supposed to be the focus. An umpire who has just made a very contraversal call steps into a press conference right after the game. He has my respect for that. I do not know many other umpires that would do that. As a plate umpire, you CANNOT see the if a catcher catches that pitch. You are BEHIND him. You must listen, as he must have, because he got the call right. As an umpire, you are taught to watch the reaction of the players in this situation if you are not sure. As to the writer of this article, go down to Daytona for 6 weeks in January and you may learn something about pro baseball. Harry and Jim would love to have you!!!

By AAAHHHHHHHHH!

October 14, 2005 04:32 AM | Link to this

This is usually the kind of crap that happens to the Braves so for once I am enjoying the debate. And, sorry, the fact that they had Eric Gregg comment on ANYTHING is hysterical! Puh-leeeze. I liken this to missing a crucial field goal - if an offense was able to score touchdowns then they wouldn’t be depending on a field goal to win a game. And the guy that got up and got the hit to win the game still got the hit. Otherwise, they may have played for EIGHTEEN FRICKIN INNINGS!!! (no, I am not bitter!).

By Duke

October 14, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this

The only fair thing to do at this point is to play a makeup game.

My opinion of what should have happened:

First a few facts - The catcher (Paul) obviously caught the ball. The Umpire obviously was abivalent about his call - he didn’t say the ball hit the dirt and it looked like an out call but we didn’t know for sure.

So what should have happened? The batter should be out. The ump didn’t make a clear call so it’s his fault, if he made a clear call either way (out or no catch), the catcher (Paul) would have acted accordingly. I mean the batter is a catcher himself and obviously not fast. So, if Paul would have known that the call was not an out call he would have tagged the batter or thrown to first.

By J. Becker

October 14, 2005 08:03 AM | Link to this

Charlie Reliford, the finest umpire in the game in my opinion, teaches that it is the umpires job to clearify the game for the players. The catch, no catch call on a third strike is a tough call somtimes unquestionalby. It is important to make your judgement as quickly as possible and then to “aggresively verbalize that call with, “THAT’S AN OUT! THAT’S AN OUT” or “NO CATCH, NO CATCH!” At least the catcher and batter-runner should be able to hear your call. Coincidentally, I had to dump a coach for Cass High School two seasons ago because I made the judgement of a catch on a third strike that the coach thought was a bad call.

By Tim McNally

October 14, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

I was a bat boy for the Joplin Miner’s (a Yankee farm team) in the early 50’s, I skipped school and watched the horrible Kansas City A’s along with 2 or 3,000 other people. I love the Braves, Bobby Cox and pray for the return of Ted Turner and his winning ways. But what I truly love about baseball is the fact that it is human. It’s tragic but not terminal, it’s joy never lasts so I appreciate it when it does come. I accept its flaws sometimes grudgingly. I love baseball, from the little kids playing “coach pitch” to the Braves, I just love it.

By greg

October 14, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

David, are you trying to tell me he HEARD the ball hit the ground? That’s amazing. This Eddings guy is a real talent.

Whether it hit the ground or not is irrelevant the moment he makes the call (I personally do not think the ball hit the ground). It’s evident from everyone’s reaction, even the batter initially, that is was stike three and out three, inning over.

Then the press conference afterward…what a joke. It sounds like something out of JFK…the ball went back and to left…back, and to the left…

By Jim

October 14, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Doug Eddings wants to put himself in the spot light.. ask Estrada and those players on the field THAT night. His explanation of should have “SOLD IT” speaks volumes.. his job is not to “SELL” the calls, but to make them. When he acknowledges he should have said “no catch” or something to the effect so that the catcher… by the way standing next to him… can know what the heck the call is….

Well folks we are not supposed to read the umpires minds… they are supposed to make the call where all can see and understand it… he didn’t and that is all there is to it. If he cannot come to games like this and perform that basic task then he should not be there period.

By Rick Mauney

October 14, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Report Card: The umpire Eddings gets a C for the call because he didn’t really know, and he gets an F for on field communication. The catcher Paul gets a D- for not following through with a routine tag. Every infielder knows on a low line drive catch to throw to first base just in case. The batter P (can’t spell the rest) gets an A+ for taking what life gives him. That’s what baseball’s all about. Go Sox!

By Valerie

October 14, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Paul, you lost your credibility when you added “Go Sox!” to your comment. Poll Sox fans and I bet 99% of them will say it was the right call. Poll Angels fans and I bet 99% will say it was wrong.

By Dustin

October 14, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Forget about if the ball bounced or not, did Eddings call the batter out? Yes he did, and that’s all that mattered

By greg

October 14, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

all you guys are morons who say that ANYTHING “clearly” happened, like Mr C who said “you are blind” if you think it hit the dirt. nothing was “clear” which is the whole point. it is my opinion that it did hit the dirt, but the BOTTOM LINE is that the catcher Paul should have tagged him. HE is the one who screwed up. having said that, i do agree that the ump should have made a clearer call. but we should look to the rulebook on that one. there should be a standard call to make when the ball hits the dirt, but there isn’t. the ump never called him OUT, he called Strike 3, which is different. the angels need to quit their whining, the game was tied anyway. Crede still had to get a super-clutch hit to win that game. it’s not like Eddings called someone safe at home or something.

By ec

October 14, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Bottom line the next guy still had to drive him in to score.

By Sharon

October 14, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Did he balk, Did he beat it out, Was his foot on the bag, Did he catch it or scoup it. Well IMO if there were a 5 4 man empiring crew with one sitting in the dougout watching replays then we would know for sure. Bud Selig is a joke and so are the empires of baseball. Especially in important games such as the playoffs where close plays happen each and every game. Then maybe the Braves would have gotten their 4th game (as Franco’s foot was on the bag and LaRoche did score the run). Game over braves 7-1. Does it matter, not one bit. The empires know who they want to win and they can make the game go that way. A lot of times that just what they do. And then they want their fans to come see them, yea right.

By doc

October 14, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

again, he might have gotten the call right or he might not have. what is the issue is he sold the out to the team on the field and didnt speak out to the catcher to let him know it wasnt a catch since he cant see the umpire. the catcher is the one who has to “hear’ the call if it is not a catch. you can say the catcher should have done such and such but because of the arm motion the play was over and the rest of the players were leaving the field, so he wouldnt have had anyone to make the play to.

the only person eddings reacted to was the batter who ran to first not by what the catcher did, as he said in the interview which by the way sounded like a president trying to cover up a trist. the thing in common is they both had their pants on the ground totally exposed.

By MLB Umpire

October 14, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

I am not umpiring in the playoffs but in any close call, the catcher should always tag the runner. This is fundamentals baseball. It did look to me that the ball possibly bounced. Imagine seeing this in 1 millisecond. It’s difficult. However, I know Doug Eddings and he is a good umpire. It’s so difficult on the close play—but it appeared to me he got it right.

By tim

October 14, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

uh whens spring training start again? before or after the Super Bowl?

By Chris

October 14, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

First of all, I beg of thee. Please don’t start thinking that the solution for a sport where games already extend to indefinite lengths of time, needs to be further lengthed my instant replays. Apparently there is still debate on this call two days later extenting games so that umpires can review every call that is close and often impossible to determine after thorough discussions on blogs will not make the game better. It has not made the NFL better ,unless you want to argue that almost 4 hours to play a sport with 60 minutes on the clock is bliss.

Secondly, lets be honest the whole thing is rather silly isn’t it. The batter swings at a pitch that is so bad it has a chance of hitting the dirt in the first place, thus the batter is rewarded for swinging at a pitch that is not really a pitch he should be swinging at. If he swings at a pitch that is so bad the catcher can’t get to it he can run to first base, granted that the player before him was not granted the same base in the same manner or one of the other ways one can get to first base. So the rules reward a swing at a bad pitch unless the pitcher has allowed a runner to get to first base then he is rewarded for getting the batter to swing at a bad pitch.

By Andy

October 14, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

The ball DID NOT hit the ground - the catcher had his mitt turned with the top of the webbing facing down - that is, the actual outside of the glove was partially laying on the ground - the ball hit in the interior of the webbing which was laying on the ground causing a bounce - but the ball never actually hit the ground - look at the film - it’s obvious.

By Brill

October 14, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

First off, nice posts Kev…”chips actor” ?!?! I guess when you post at 3 in the morning that is what comes out. I saw the play live and a million replays. Looked to me like the catcher caught the ball. And blaming the catcher is like blaming a rape victim for wearing something too suggestive. The ump screwed up and his union ump buddies have to cover for him no matter how silly they look. That was the worst thing I have seen in 30 years of watching baseball and I am pulling for the Sox.

By Braves fan

October 14, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Is there no more asinine rule in baseball than this one where the catcher has to catch a pitch on the fly on a third strike or tag the hitter? What is the basis for this rule? The hitter stuck out on a pitch in the dirt. Why should he be rewarded the opportunity to gain 1st base for swinging at such a crappy pitch? The same goes for all the appeals on check swings that end up as balls. Make the home plate umpire solely responsible for balls and strikes and leave the other umpires to rule on plays at the bases and foul balls. I can tell from my TV at home when a batter has swung; I don’t need a side replay for that. 95% of them should be ruled swings. They should be giving the pitcher credit for fooling the hitter, not looking for ways to get a hitter off the hook for making a bad decision to swing.

By Charlie

October 14, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

To MLB Umpire: Whether or not he got the call right, if you think Eddings is a good umpire YOU are part of the problem.

By James

October 14, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

I hope everyone reading this who is a football fan DIES AND IS RAPED!!!

By DAVID FENNESSY

October 14, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

MECHANICS:

U-1 (plate umpire) when in doubt of a catch no catch on a swinging strike three, U-1 should hold his position for a split second while the clear umpire (in this case U-3, second base) descretely points to the ground for no catch and or a clenched fist for a catch. It was humanly impossible for U-1 to see that play. Hence U-1 goes with the assist from U-2.

By Dylan

October 14, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

For those of you who blame the catcher for not tagging the batter out, he looked at the umpire, who clearly called the batter out. Thus the catcher had no reason to tag the batter.

It’s like if a football player fell down and the ref whistled the play dead, and everyone stopped chasing him. If the player got up to run the ball to the end zone would it be a touchdown? Give me a break! You can’t UNCALL a call like that! The players were already walking off the field.

By Jim Davis

October 14, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Bradley, you need to pay closer attention to the replay. One frame shows the ball on a downward trajectory toward the ground, the next shows it just about to hit the ground, and the next shows the ball lodged in the mitt four inches above the ground. This could only have happened if something—ie, the ground—had changed the ball’s path to an upward trajectory.

By Matt Godfrey

October 14, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Any idiot who has ever watched a baseball game can clearly see when a ball hits the dirt there is dust or the movement of dirt. Anyone who has seen the play can clearly see there is no dirt movement or dust. For the rest of the series the Angels should run to first when they strike out, weather the ball is caught or not. Apprently it’s an easy way to get on base.

By Brill

October 14, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

I wish I had thought of Dylan’s analogy it is perfect. James, take it easy. It’s Friday.

By Ahh

October 14, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Is it wrong if I feel better about my own intelligence after reading some of these comments?

By David W.

October 14, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

I agree with those who say that the ball changed direction and was trapped. The replay angle from the right-hand side of the plate clearly shows a change of direction and the straight on angle clearly shows the trap.

Shoud the catcher have made the tag, anyway? You bet he should have!

Should Eddings have been clearer with the call? Absolutely!

The bottom line is that he DID make the right call. Period. Plus, as has already been pointed out, the White Sox still stole 2nd base and Crede still lined an 0-2 pitch for the game winning double.

Even the Angel manager admitted that this call didn’t lose the game for his team. I respect him for not using it as a crutch.

Too bad Mark Bradley, and the rest of the biased media machine, have to!

By Mike

October 14, 2005 11:56 PM | Link to this

Why is there any controversy on this play??? Why is anyone talking about this play??? Because the catcher failed to tag a runner on a ball that obviously hit the dirt??? No, I don’t think so.

The replay clearly show the catcher and everybody on the entire Angels team running into the dugout. So, it’s clear, for all those comments saying the catcher trapped the ball, from the replay, the catcher himself sure thought he caught the ball.

Do you reward first base by deceiving on entire team?? Whose job is it to clarify the play??? Either through arm motions or verbalizing, I always thought the umpire was suppose to do that. Sure looked like to me, the only movements coming from this umpire, was something like YOU’RE OUT.

By Mike

October 15, 2005 12:05 AM | Link to this

Why is there any controversy on this play??? Because the catcher failed to tag the runner??? No, I don’t think so.

For a ball that was obviously trapped, it seemed to me he was 100 percent he caught it. Why is he and the entire Angel team running off the field???

Whose job is it to clarify plays like these??? The catcher?? If not, then who??? Isn’t it suppose to be the umpire??

If an umpire awards first base by deceiving an entire team then, in my opinion, that umpire is doing a very poor job.

On replay, the only motions coming from THIS UMPIRE were ones that seem to say YOU’RE OUT.

By Joe Roman

October 15, 2005 09:18 PM | Link to this

Where have you people been? You obviously haven’t watched very many baseball games or listened to the commentary. WHEN PLAYING BASEBALL, YOU NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. The Angels’ catcher ASSUMED the call. He ROLLED the ball toward the pitcher’s mound and headed for the dugout. WRONG on both counts. He should have either tagged Konerko or thrown to first. This isn’t baseball’s problem. It is the Angel’s catcher’s problem. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled children asking for a “do over”. Learn the damn game! That little pantywaist Dan Patrick agrued with Jeff Brantley for about fifteen minutes on Patrick’s radio show the day after the game. Brantley said they watched the play in ultra-slow mo countless times. The catcher’s mit bent back with the catcher’s wrist as the dirt flew. If the ball had been caught, that would not have happened. Plus, the umpire was about a foot from the ball, all of you and and Mark Bradley were sitting on your dead butts on a couch, easy chair or bar stool and devoting something far less than 100% attention to what was going on. Get over yourselves!

By Brian

October 16, 2005 12:21 AM | Link to this

If you watched the Astros-Cards game the day after the incident, they showed a zoomed in, dead center replay of the play. That replay shows the ball clearly bouncing up just before it disappears into Paul’s glove. I have not seen this replay since, and I am disappointed that it isn’t being shown more to cool the heads of all who unknowingly believe it was the wrong call. The ump made the right call. As for his gestures, I agree that it was unclear. BUT, more importantly, if you look at the replay you will see Paul roll the ball to the mound BEFORE Eddings gives his clinch-fisted out gesture. So it’s not like Paul saw the gesture and took that to mean the inning was over. He threw the ball BEFORE.

So anyway you slice it, Pierzynski would/should have made it.

Have you not seen this replay? Why, as a journalist, did you write that the play was “indisputably” caught? You owe your readers and Eddings an apology (even if you still believe his way of calling it was unclear).

By John

October 16, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Didn’t anyone else who watched this unfold immediately think of Kent Hrbek and Ron Gant? The shock of everyone on the planet seeing what you see, except the umpire, and then having that DECIDE THE GAME! This is obviously not the first time this type of thing has happened and sadly it will not be the last.

By Don Briscoe

October 16, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Eddings made the same mistake that a lot of umpires from high school to the majors make — I umpired for many years and a basic fact of life is this —

Unless you have a situation where you have less than 2 outs and first base occupied, you don’t have an automatic out just because you have strike 3. You have 2 different calls — first, is the pitch a strike or ball (if so, you call strike 3) and if it’s a strike, was the out completed by catching the ball (if so, then you make the your second call, an out call)

Too many umpires getting caught up in making some big, dramatic, showboating strike 3 call which has evolved into everyone thinking — “well, he must be out if the umpire is doing all of those gyrations”

As a result of all this, the umpires forget that they have 2 separate and distinct calls — they go ahead and make their one strike 3 ESPN dance — and totally forget about their catch, no catch responsibility.

This is exactly what happened in this case — Eddings did his thing, made his call and then when the runner took off running he realized he might have messed up —

Now he’s trying to have it both ways — saying he didn’t call the guy out, just a strike — but I guarantee you this — if the batter had continued toward the dugout instead of toward first base, you would not have seen Eddings call him out for abandoning the base line — because the first time he thought about the possibility the ball wasn’t caught was when the batter took off to first

Otherwise, he should have given a very mechanical, very perfunctory strike 3 call that could never be interpreted as an out call

By Joe Roman

October 16, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Brian. I often wonder if the NFL puts a “check in the mail” every so often for sports media figures-just to make sure. Notice how anything controversial in a baseball game is ALWAYS a reflection on the game and insitution itself while NOTHING in the NFL has such world-shaking ramifications? Personally, I think a campaign has been afoot for years to denegrate baseball in every way possible and hype football in the very next breath. It makes me sick.

By MCDonoughDawg

October 16, 2005 07:19 PM | Link to this

On my 47” HIDEF TV, the ball went into the mitt. No dirt flew, no dust was raised. The ump called strike and punched him out. End of the play. That Ump made a bad call.

By David W.

October 16, 2005 10:53 PM | Link to this

John,

It didn’t “decide the game”. The subsequent stolen base and Joe Crede’s double did that. The Angels still could have gotten out unscathed and headed to the top of the 10th. They didn’t. End of story.

By jim

October 17, 2005 02:14 AM | Link to this

Wow! I am always amazed just how blood boiling excited some “fans” can get about one call. It was close, the ump should have communicated his decision better, the catcher should not have take anything for granted and tagged the runner, but it didn’t cost the Angels the game. It was still tied and LAA would still have to score and then hold off the White Sox. I must admit that this play made a lot harder.

By Kevin

October 17, 2005 07:13 AM | Link to this

Hi I am paul Byrd former pitcher of braves who is goin watch white sox win there first world championship at home with me pal Janet wright….Oh ball was trap so we lostseries.. 4-1.Sorry bobby we choke like braves do….Only in championship Games…

By braves fan

October 17, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

First of all Doug Eddings is a bad umpire. He has a combative attitude with players, as evidenced by his ejection of Estrada as he sat in a crouch warming giving his pitcher a sign. Second of all, he has poor form as an umpire. The sign for a strike is to point your finger to the side and say “strike” in a loud, clear voice. The sign for an out is a clenched fist. Eddings incorrectly uses the out sign as the strike sign. On swings and misses there is not really a need to make a call for a strike unless there is a question on whether the batter went around or not. In this case, if Eddings thought the ball hit the ground he should have given a verbal strike call and wait for the catcher to tag the hitter to give an out sign. If he thought the ball did not hit the ground, he should have given a convincing out sign and stopped AJ from running to first. His misuse of signs is what brought this situation on. At the very least he needs to be retrained to do the correct signs. But he needs to be let go, because this is the majors, no need to have a subpar umpire when there are plenty of qualified guys in the minors who’d love to get that opportunity.

By joe

October 18, 2005 06:49 AM | Link to this

The out is not made on a strikeout until the ball is caught. The strike must be indicated, which the ump did.

The mistake he made was allowing the runner to first. The catcher made the mistake, that a lot of 10 year olds don’t, when in doubt - complete the play.

Overall, much noise over not much.