Was that the real umpire, or was that Steve Bartman in disguise?

Randall:

Some thoughts:

>10) Replays clearly show the ball hit leather not dirt. <
No, the super slo-mo replay definitely showed that the ball's
trajectory changed milli-seconds before it hit the glove.

Moreover, Josh Paul has to take some responsibility for this fiasco.
He should have tagged the Pierzynski no matter what, period, end of
story.

>25) . . . the tipped strike rule treats strike three different from strikes one and two.<
No, not really. How do you figure this?? A tipped strike is a strike
whether it be strike 1, 2, or 3.

The best to you each morning,
Madman

'Twas 13 Oct 2005 0624 -0700 when all alt.sports.baseball stood in awe
as "Madman" <4Fishers@Compuserve.com> uttered:

>>10) Replays clearly show the ball hit leather not dirt. <
>No, the super slo-mo replay definitely showed that the ball's
>trajectory changed milli-seconds before it hit the glove.

I have not seen a replay where it looks like the ball hit the dirt. A
majority of people who have watched the replay agree with me. There is a
quite substantial number on your side, too. That's the problem with
instant replay.

>Moreover, Josh Paul has to take some responsibility for this fiasco.
>He should have tagged the Pierzynski no matter what, period, end of
>story.

Absolutely, and I'll bet a certain former Dodger catcher made that clear
to him last night. The ump normally says "out". Eddings didn't say "no
catch" either, but that's irrelevant.

Furthermore, the umpire did not put the runner on second. I think Paul
and Escobar were still fuming over the call and just let the winning run
into scoring position. If I were that former Dodger catcher, I would be
more upset over this brain cramp than anything else.

>>25) . . . the tipped strike rule treats strike three different from strikes one and two.<
>No, not really. How do you figure this?? A tipped strike is a strike
>whether it be strike 1, 2, or 3.

The question is whether it's a foul ball or not. If it's strike one or
two, it is not a foul ball. It is as if the ball did not touch the bat;
the catcher can not record a foul out. But on a tipped strike three, if
the catcher drops it, is that a dropped third strike? No it's a foul
ball, because it hit the bat.

--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-818-985-3259
dt ||\ Do the Math: http://calculator.brainthru.com
a |/ Our New Attorney General: http://alberto.brainthru.com
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com

>>>25) . . . the tipped strike rule treats strike three different from strikes one and two.<

>>No, not really. How do you figure this?? A tipped strike is a strike
>>whether it be strike 1, 2, or 3.

>The question is whether it's a foul ball or not. If it's strike one or
>two, it is not a foul ball. It is as if the ball did not touch the bat;
>the catcher can not record a foul out. But on a tipped strike three, if
>the catcher drops it, is that a dropped third strike? No it's a foul
>ball, because it hit the bat.

Ah ha, I get your point. A caught tipped stripe for strike 1 & 2 is
not
a foul ball in that the batter is not called out. A caught tipped
stripe
for strike 3 is essentially a foul ball in that the batter IS called
out.

Thanks,
Madman

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:56:51 -0700, Madman wrote:

> A caught tipped
> stripe
> for strike 3 is essentially a foul ball in that the batter IS called
> out.
>
> Thanks,


No

That's a strike out. A ball which is thought to be tipped is strike three
when the catcher holds on, not a foul out. And if the catcher misses
it, according to what is being said here, it is a foul ball and the hitter
can't run.

Is that's right? The purpose of the rule is to avoid the
dispute over the tip. Unless it is popped up or visibly deflected, I
thought the umpire is releived from calling the contact and the batter can
run. That's the test. If the catcher catches it, its a strike. If he
can't its a foul? Then the ump still needs to determine if there has been
contact even on the tip?

'Twas Fri, 14 Oct 2005 0134 GMT when all
alt.sports.baseball.calif-angels stood in awe as Randall Bart
<Barticus@att.spam.net> uttered:

>The question is whether it's a foul ball or not. If it's strike one or
>two, it is not a foul ball. It is as if the ball did not touch the bat;
>the catcher can not record a foul out. But on a tipped strike three, if
>the catcher drops it, is that a dropped third strike? No it's a foul
>ball, because it hit the bat.

Okay, I'm wrong. I knew how the tipped strike worked out but not the
reasoning. If the catcher catches it, it's not a foul ball, it's just a
strike, as though it did not touch the bat. If the catcher doesn't catch
it, it's a foul, as though it did hit the bat. That's the extent of the
inconsistency (caught or not), and the third strike effect is just the
normal foul ball rule.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-818-985-3259
dt ||\ Do the Math: http://calculator.brainthru.com
a |/ Our New Attorney General: http://alberto.brainthru.com
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com

'Twas Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:04:12 -0400 when all alt.sports.baseball stood
in awe as Ruben Safir <notice_me@blink.org> uttered:

>Now here is an even stranger consideration. Say there is a man on 1st and
>2 strikes on the batter. The pitch is delivered and the batter
>swings and misses a ball in the dirt. The ball skips away from the
>catcher just a little and now what? The runner on first can break for
>second but the batter can't run for 1st and is out?

That is essentially a manifestation of the infield fly rule. The batter
is out on a dropped third strike with first occupied and less than two
out.

--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-818-985-3259
dt ||\ Do the Math: http://calculator.brainthru.com
a |/ Our New Attorney General: http://alberto.brainthru.com
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com

Ruben Safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> Randall Bart wrote:

>> Okay, I'm wrong. I knew how the tipped strike worked out but not the
>> reasoning. If the catcher catches it, it's not a foul ball, it's just a
>> strike, as though it did not touch the bat. If the catcher doesn't catch
>> it, it's a foul, as though it did hit the bat. That's the extent of the
>> inconsistency (caught or not), and the third strike effect is just the
>> normal foul ball rule.

> That's what I thought, until now. Here's the inconsistency. If the
> batter doesn't swing and the ball skips past the catcher the batter can
> run. If he swings and misses and the ball skips past the catcher (or it
> hits the dirt like with the Angels) on the third strike, he can also run.
> There are two different rules in effect.

Correct - if it is strike three and if first based is not occupied ot
there are two outs.

> Now here is an even stranger consideration. Say there is a man on 1st and
> 2 strikes on the batter. The pitch is delivered and the batter
> swings and misses a ball in the dirt. The ball skips away from the
> catcher just a little and now what? The runner on first can break for
> second but the batter can't run for 1st and is out?

Correct - if there are less than two outs.

> And looking over these rules, it is easy to see why the play unfolded as
> it did. And what if the player doesn't run? He is out when and for what
> reason?

If the player does not proceed toward first base, where does the player go?
To the dugout or to the player's defensive position. In which case the
player has either left the base path or abandoned the pursuit of first base
some other way.

Dick