Did He or Didn't He...IT DOESN'T MATTER!

[genegodawa]

Sanders is on fire, but did you see his stats for like (I really can't remember) his first 200 playoff AB's? Abysymal (sp?)!

[M.T. Bucket]

Quote:

---

As for the ball hitting the ground or not, it has been debated 9 ways to Sunday and there have been 100 different angles and enhanced blow up shots and it looks like the ball does change direction, bouncing up slightly towards Paul's mitt. Like I said in my previous post, I thought I saw Paul hesitate for a second too long with his mitt on the ground and I think that is where he was letting the ball nestle into his mitt. I believed it then and still believe that the ball did, hit the ground prior to entering his mitt.

---

I'm no Sox fan by any stretch, but I completely agree with this statement. It seems that few of the sports shows have showed the extremely blown up video clip that makes it plain that the ball hit the dirt. They only showed that clip once during the game while the commentators were ragging on the ump's call. Had they shut up and watched that one I think they would have changed their tune.

I did think that the ump's motions were somewhat unclear and added to the confusion, but the end result was a correct call.

[Windy City Walleye Hunter]

Let's take this debate one step further. Let's say that instant replay was in effect in the MLB and let's say Mike Sciosa threw out his red hanky. The umps could look at the play 9 ways to Sunday and there would not be conclusive video evidence that the call should be reversed. You can not tell whether the ball hit the ground just prior to entering the webbing of Paul's mitt therefore we would have heard, "Upon further review, there is not conclusive video evidence to overturn the call, therefore, the play stands and the Angels will be assessed one time out!" End of story.

YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOARD...YES!

[friendlyfisher]

So what you guys are saying is that a 90mph pitch can hit the ground and not kick up any dirt? I dont think so.

[Windy City Walleye Hunter]

When it is surrounded on all sides by a catcher's mitt, I would say yes! Still gets down to the fact that Paul made a mistake, when a play is that close and all it would have taken was a leisurly tag on AJ's bottom or a lollipop toss down to Erstad, you have to make that play. It's like when a runner is called safe and the player in the field argues the call with the ump while baserunners continue running the bases. You have to play the call and you have to assume the worst and make the tag. How many times do you see catchers tag guys on the butt as they are walking back to the dugout. It is an insurance policy against a bad call by an ump. You may know that you caught the ball a quarter of an inch off the ground with your mitt surrounding the ball but the guy who is making the call who is standing behind the batter who is standing behind you with your back turned towards him may not know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you did indeed catch the ball. When the runner takes off towards first base there may be even more doubt that creeps into the umps mind and when you don't complete the play, he is going to error on the side of the person who most completed the play and that was AJ! End of story.

YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOARD...YES!