We Wuz Robbed

15 Responses to “We Wuz Robbed”

1. Joel B. Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 6:08 am

   Well, that’s looking on the bright side! Game 5 of an LCS! Nice. It will be poetic if that’s the game they end up clinching, that would probably be nice for you that is.

2. clark smith Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 8:22 am

   The frame-by-frame slo-mo of the play reveals that the ball indisputably bounced. As to the contested ruling of the umpires, the only question is whether 3rd string Angel catcher Josh Paul got the front lip of his webbing under it, or whether the ball bounced in the dirt; upon this point the available camera angles have proven inconclusive.

   Since the ball caromed up into the back of Paul’s glove—as opposed to a clean catch on the ball’s downward arc—the claim of “We was robbed” is iffy at best.

   Whether the umps got the call right or not, it seems the Angels are suffering under the ‘Curse of the Gloating Xrlq.’ Dissing the Dodgers is very bad karma, and has its consequences.

3. Boi From Troy » Anaheim Angels drop game two on controversial call Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 9:23 am

   [...] At least Angels fans can see the silver lining in this cloud. [...]

4. Xrlq Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 9:38 am

   It was a close call, and it went against the Angels. Nuff said. We wuz robbed.

5. Joel B. Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 9:54 am

   The replays I say it’s very hard to say whether the ball hit the dirt or not. Either way, he sure as heck made the gesture for out. The ump should not be sending such mixed signals.

   Other baseball news, has the A’s interviewing Orel Hersheisher as their manager, that would be pretty cool I think. I always liked Orel, even though he was a Dodger (eeuch).

6. Xrlq Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 10:12 am

   Did the ump actually signal an out, or did he just signal a third strike which everyone assumed meant the batter was out? I was listening to the game in the car so I didn’t actually see it.

7. Joel B. Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 10:25 am

   So, (and like everything I could be wrong), I’ve always assumed that the call for a strike is on open hand. So raise the hand up, and leave the hand open. To signal an out, the fist should be clinched. The ump clearly made a clinched fist when he signalled. Which to me, seems to pretty clearly indicate “out.”

   FWIW, if the ump signalled a third strike, and not an out, there shouldn’t have been any complaining by the Angels, in order to “steal 1st” the third strike must be called. Otherwise, it’d just be a ball. And the batter couldn’t steal first.

8. Xrlq Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 11:13 am

   I’m not sure I understand that last comment. How can a swing and a miss ever not be a strike?

9. Joel B. Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 11:35 am

   Well, a swing and a miss would always be a third strike, assuming the batter did not check his swing. But my understanding, was also, say a 3rd strike was called (over the plate at the correct height) but the catcher dropped the ball, the batter could still steal first, and that’s why it would be important for the umpire to call the third strike.

10. tgirsch Says:
    October 13th, 2005 at 11:45 am

    Good teams don’t let one bad call, however bad it may be, ruin a game for them. Nothing about the ump’s call forced Escobar to serve up a tater, and the ump making the correct call wouldn’t have guaranteed an Angels win, either. Like Buckner’s through-the-legs moment, this will get far more attention than it deserves.

    In any case, the replays were inconclusive, and I’ve seen catchers do a cautionary tag of struck-out batters in much less-uncertain (not to mention important) situations.

    Well, a swing and a miss would always be a third strike

    Not true! It could be strike one or strike two! *ducks*

11. Joel B. Says:
    October 13th, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    Heh heh, doh I goofed in what I said, oh well.

    One of the things that speaks really well of Mike Scoisia (sp?) is that he said pretty much exactly what you said after the game. But still that doesn’t stop me from saying it was iffy on the part of the ump.

12. Xrlq Says:
    October 13th, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    Joel: I agree that a called strike is needed if the batter takes the pitch, but in this case he swung for it so it didn’t matter that it was nowhere near the strike zone.

    Tom: I haven’t seen the replays yet but don’t doubt you are correct that they are inconclusive as to whether Paul caught vs. trapped the ball. What I’m more interested in is whether the ump signalled an out or not. If he did, the Josh Paul and the Angels should not be penalized for relying on that. If he didn’t, and they simply assumed the guy was out when he wasn’t, that’s different. Either way, though, it was a close call that disfavored the Angels, so I stand by the heading.

13. Joel B. Says:
    October 13th, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    Even though there wasn’t consideration, there was detrimental reliance on the umps promise of Pierzinski being out! Promissory Estoppel! What fun!

14. Pat Patterson Says:
    October 13th, 2005 at 6:34 pm

    I live in a condomium complex and with this warm weather all of the sliding doors were open, my neighbor’s houses as well. It sounded like, when Pierzinski took first, every middle-aged guy in Huntington Beach was having a heart attack. I love sharing important moments with my neighbors. Who says that there is no community in Orange County?

15. Hube Says:
    October 15th, 2005 at 6:10 am

    Good teams don’t let one bad call, however bad it may be, ruin a game for them.

    I don’t know ’bout that. Anyone remember this pathetic call?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail