Look carefully at the replay of the pitch from the front angle. It clearly hits the dirt a millisecond before going up into the glove. It was the right call. Good job blue!!

Yep, the zoomed-in frame-by-frame replay showed the ball bounce up into Josh Paul's glove. I don't know if it was just a missing frame or something but the ball definately went upward into Paul's glove. The other zoomed-out replay made it look like Paul caught the ball cleanly.

I saw that as well. I don't know if the ump called strike three or strike three, you're out, but any catcher that is in the big leagues, let alone on a team in the ALCS KNOWS throw the ball to first or tag the guy, don't ASSUME that the umpire saw you catch it cleanly.

 

I am not saying I wouldn't be livid if it was reversed, but I would be more pissed at my catcher than the ump (although he would get some of my wrath as well lol).

I said this right off the bat.

 

There is a clear change in direction of the ball, it bounces up.

 

Now it is possible that it bounces in the lower part of the mitt and goes to the upper part, but it shows that there is no certainty about the call.

 

It was a judgement call, and even with the high tech equipment there is no absolute answer.

 

I believe the reason we got the call is that the White Sox showed hussle on the play, where as the Angels were just taking the strike out for granted.

 

SB

Anyone got a picture, I honestly believe it hit the ground as well but I don't have any good proof yet.

Also Kruk and Reynolds on ESPN basically said no matter what happenned Josh Paul screwed up in how he handled the situation, and they think the umpire never called him out based on AJs reaction

I said this right off the bat.

 

There is a clear change in direction of the ball, it bounces up.

 

Now it is possible that it bounces in the lower part of the mitt and goes to the upper part, but it shows that there is no certainty about the call.

 

It was a judgement call, and even with the high tech equipment there is no absolute answer.

 

I believe the reason we got the call is that the White Sox showed hussle on the play, where as the Angels were just taking the strike out for granted.

 

SB

Plus if you look you see the ball bounce up and if it didn't hit the ground, it wouldn't have went up higher into the mitt. I think its the right call.

Boards of all teams are criticizing the call and with good reason. It was a terrible call. You can diagnose this for hours but the fact remains, the White Sox and Angels are tied at 1.

Anyone got a picture, I honestly believe it hit the ground as well but I don't have any good proof yet.

 

 

No stills but watching the slow mo replay clearly shows it bounce up into his glove. Notice also how nobody is trying to dispute that it was the right call either. They're all focusing on the confusion caused by the ump making the fist.

Anyone got a picture, I honestly believe it hit the ground as well but I don't have any good proof yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There were 2 replays shown. The zoomed-out replay made it look like Paul caught the ball cleanly. The extremely zoomed-in frame-by-frame replay that FOX showed made it look like the ball bounced upward into Paul's glove.

I saw that as well.  I don't know if the ump called strike three or strike three, you're out, but any catcher that is in the big leagues, let alone on a team in the ALCS KNOWS throw the ball to first or tag the guy, don't ASSUME that the umpire saw you catch it cleanly.

 

I am not saying I wouldn't be livid if it was reversed, but I would be more pissed at my catcher than the ump (although he would get some of my wrath as well lol).

 

The ball was trapped! Two consecutive still shots indicated that. If the ball did not hit the ground, it would not have landed high in the glove. The question remained is did the umpire call or make a signal that Pierzynski was out?

 

In any event, if the situation reverses, do you think the Angels would give a damn whether it was a right call or not? A win is a win.

 

Just like Mike Sciosia said during his post game conference, they didn't lose the game because of the call. They did not play good enough to win this game. Whether it's a good or bad call, you have to accept the result and move on...

Boards of all teams are criticizing the call and with good reason.  It was a terrible call.  You can diagnose this for hours but the fact remains, the White Sox and Angels are tied at 1.

 

 

No f***ing way. Watch it in slow mo from the front angle. It CLEARLY bounces.

Boards of all teams are criticizing the call and with good reason.  It was a terrible call.  You can diagnose this for hours but the fact remains, the White Sox and Angels are tied at 1.

If it hit the dirt, it wasn't a horrid call. There was no he's out (not a definitive one) there was no anything (either way) that indicated that the Angels should have stopped and threw the ball back.

 

I vehemently disagree with this idea, imo. The ball hit the dirt and its a players job to keep playing until something is ruled final. Plus how can it be a horrible call when no replay shows that the ball clearly went into his mitt. In fact I think most replays show that there is a pretty likely chance that it did hit the dirt.

Also Kruk and Reynolds on ESPN basically said no matter what happenned Josh Paul screwed up in how he handled the situation, and they think the umpire never called him out based on AJs reaction

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pierzynski said he never heard anyone call him out. That's why he ran to 1st base even though he knew he struck out.

This is why I thought he trapped it. Right when the ball gets near Paul's mit he keeps the mit on the ground for a second or two like he's trying to pick the ball out of the dirt. I haven't seen evidence either way, I'll find out before the night is over though.

It looked to me like it hit the dirt. I have no idea how the hell the umpire could have seen that though...

 

Paul should have tagged A.J.

Edited October 13, 200520 yr by Linnwood

This is why I thought he trapped it.  Right when the ball gets near Paul's mit he keeps the mit on the ground for a second or two like he's trying to pick the ball out of the dirt.  I haven't seen evidence either way, I'll find out before the night is over though.

 

 

BBTN is on now. Watch the slow mo replay from the front angle. It proves without a shadow of a doubt it hit the dirt.

Sorry guys, but nobody will convince me that he didn't catch it. But we take it!

I still can't tell either way.

Josh Paul is on Comcast right now insisting that he caught it. He just said that the Ump said "No catch"

Sorry guys, but nobody will convince me that he didn't catch it. But we take it!

 

 

He caught it alright.........on one hop.

Josh Paul is on Comcast right now insisting that he caught it. He just said that the Ump said "No catch"

If he said no catch, doesn't that mean that it wasn't caught.

I still say it was clear it hit the dirt. I agree that I am not sure how an ump could tell one way or another which is exactly the reason the catcher should know to tag the batter/throw to first just to make sure, especially in a game this crucial.

If it hit the dirt, it wasn't a horrid call.  There was no he's out (not a definitive one) there was no anything (either way) that indicated that the Angels should have stopped and threw the ball back. 

 

I vehemently disagree with this idea, imo.  The ball hit the dirt and its a players job to keep playing until something is ruled final.  Plus how can it be a horrible call when no replay shows that the ball clearly went into his mitt.  In fact I think most replays show that there is a pretty likely chance that it did hit the dirt.

 

Chisoxfn, what do make of the umpire's clenching his fist? Why did he do that if it wasn't an out? I know the ball was trapped. My question is in regard to the umpire's motion.

If he said no catch, doesn't that mean that it wasn't caught.

 

Kinda sounds that way, doesn't it?