Mariotti: Just call it another strike against baseball

Chicago Suntimes Online ^ | 10/14/2005 | Jay Mariotti

[Not A Snowbird]

I need to get a copy of that HBO documentary on Oakland in the early 70s, which focused on the A's & Raiders. I lived near Oakland during those years, and it really captured the collective mindset of the East Bay.

No kidding? I grew up in Concord/Walnut Creek, and had season tickets to the Raiders for a couple of seasons in the the 70's.

We might have tailgaited next to each other and not even known it. :-)

[frogjerk]

I've seen many plays where the ump calls batter or runner out initially and then changes the call after either the fielder drops the ball or there is an appeal.

[Wristpin]

Your beef is with the NFL rulebook, my friend. Don't blame the officials for getting the call right, or Belichick for knowing the rules so well he knew to throw the red flag.

Yep and lost on many Raider fans is that on the ensuing game winning drive, Patriot receivers broke almost a dozen tackles getting to the sidelines killing the clock. Troy Brown broke three tackles on one play!

The Raiders were old and gave up.

[BlueYonder]

The Angels catcher assumed

The problem in a nutshell.

[youngjim]

Ya, Mariotti makes his living out of manufacturing controversy. They've got paper to fill and its easy to cry and moan about an umps "blown call." Then whenever the fans dog him by email, he insults us further by insisting that fans should ignore him and watch the team.

Really, no body I know reads him. He's just the loudest of the squeaky wheels that make up the chicago baseball sports rags.

I'm thinking all this caviling will only hurt the Angels. Umps didn't do anything wrong and the Angels crying about the ump's "mechanics" (hand signals) is completely laughable. The catcher admits he never heard AJ "called out." But the manager and others insist he motioned a strike--funny thing is no way the catcher (a former Sox player) could see the motion. He assumed the call--and you know what happens if you assume.

Hey Mariotti, na na na na, na na na na, Sox win one, u lose.

[Night Hides Not]

I agree 100% with what you said and said as much in my initial response to this thread. My point was it all evens out in the end and the players move on a whole lot faster then the weenie media does.

Jay Mariotti represents the worst of today's sports media. It's not enough that they have their own byline, and get to attend world class sporting events while getting paid for it. Now, thanks to ESPN, they are all clamoring to get face time on TV. To get that face time, they have to be obnoxious like Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, Woody Paige, et al.

What the white writers don't understand is that they can't be as over the top as the minority writers, who really get away with slander and racial references.

Even mild-mannered Tim Cowlishaw of the Dallas Morning News, whose work I have enjoyed in the past, has become smarmy and arrogant in his columns of late. DMN's sportsblog is replete with references to which staff members of the staff are getting the most time on TV, not on who's doing the best reporting.

[rudy45]

But, is the team actually charged with an "out"? If the answer is yes, then that means (doesn't it?) that the teams ends up making more than three outs in the inning? Thanks.

[Night Hides Not]

We might have tailgaited next to each other and not even known it. :-)

Never was fortunate enough to see the Raiders live at the Colisseum. I did get to see them beat the 'Pokes at Texas Stadium in the mid-80s, though.

I grew up in Castro Valley. After I graduated from HS in '72, I went to college in Washington (Gonzaga). During my junior year, my folks retired and moved to Oregon. Visited my sister in Oakland a few times, but that's about it. Been a "naturalized" Texan for the past 25 years.

Seattle's a beautiful city...visited many times. Beautiful country up there. Texas has its own beauty, too. The bluebonnets and wildflowers in the spring make the summers worth bearing. The Rio Grande Gorge is worth a visit, too.

If the opportunity arose, I'd move back to Spokane in a heartbeat. Still, I'm very happy here in Texas.

[SAJ]

If the batter-runner reaches 1st base after a dropped third strike, the pitcher is credited with a strikeout, either the pitcher or catcher is charged with an error, but the team at-bat is not charged with an out. You can take either view of whether this constitutes a fourth out in an inning. Certainly the fielding team will be obliged to have another batter make out.

However, there is one situation where the fielding team must produce a fourth out in an inning or else suffer adverse consequences. Can you name it?

[tophat9000]

The Angels catcher assumed the inning was over and ran off the field. Just because the umpire calls the third strike and an out does not mean the batter cannot advance to first on an error by the catcher.

Sorry but that doesn't cut it because even after Angels catcher put the ball on the ground the Angels could still pick in up and toss it to first to to get the out if they know the ball is live still...

If you look an the replay the plate ump gave both the "strike three" AND the "out signal" meaning "dead ball"...

At the very least the plate ump if he contends the ball is still live after Angels catcher put it on the ground needs to indicate to his fellow ump that ball is still in play so THEY (the other umps) could get back in to position to make a call if needed.... the other ump were walking out of position because they also thought the inning was over ( note the White Sox runner didn't have to stop at first he could of rounded the bases)

The kicked is the plate ump walked on to the field between the Angels pitcher and the ball ..and the ump had his back to the ball, the Angels pitcher was the closest Angels player to the live ball the pitcher could pick it up and try to make the play at first...

So why is the plate ump walked in between the player and the ball and the ump is not even looking an the ball (note that if the ump really thought the ball was still live would have stayed out of the potential play and follower what was going on with that live ball on the ground to see if the Angels go get the ball and try to make the play?... after all the play is where ever the live ball is... and the ball was not at first so the play is not at first yet..

So why is the ump not looking at the live ball on the ground but has got his back to it?

Because he knew he call it an out and the ball behind him was dead... then he sees the White Son player ran to first... and then the plate ump for what ever reason called the dead ball live.. that play was total BS

[Eagles Talon IV]

I live in MA, I am surrounded by fanatical Pats fans and to a one they all agree it was a fumble and I mean EVERY ONE of them. As I have said before, I am not claiming partisanship on the part of the referee I am merely saying the call was blown. In a contested call the evidence has to be irrefutable to overturn the call on the field. Not only was the replay not showing irrefutable evidence of a tuck it was showing exactly the opposite. I saw that game with 4 of my neighbors, all Pats fans and not a one of them saw what apparently you did.

As I said, these things even out in the end and the Pats have and will get calls against them as will every other team. But to claim in this particular instance that the refs got the call correct is just plain bogus.

[nikos1121]

I really havn't read or heard what the Angel fans or their media are saying. I agree with you that the catcher should not be assuming anything.

The people, mainly media, who are saying that the umpire needs to call out that the ball was not caught are stupid. Are they saying that if a runner misses the bag while running the bases the umpire should call that out too when he sees it?

[nikos1121]

"And, by the way... when did the officiating crews start holding press conferences? WTF is that all about?!"

I loved that first question from some foreign reporter. Something about they say if there is not officiating controversy it was not a good game. I don't know who ever said that, but the umpire chief's reply was priceless:

"Pardon me? Next question."

[nikos1121]

And don't forget that Ozuma stole second before Crede's hit. They could have kept him on the bag or thrown him out and still be out of the inning.

[Eagles Talon IV]

What is happening in the media today and by media I mean all of it, print, TV, sports as well as regular programming is the total pandering to the lowest common denominator to gain and hold attention (ratings). Hell;l, I could right a sitcom that would draw tons of viewers if I could use sex, innuendo and foul language to whatever degree I saw fit. You don't need to be talented to write garbage. But todays writers are not capable, I believe, to write shows like I Love Lucy, Ozzie & Harriet, Father Knows Best, The Honeymooners" etc, shows in which even the hint of sex was absent but were none the less entertaining.

So these sportscasters will continue to push the envelope and become more and more raunchy as long as people are willing to put up with it. Personally I haven't watched a network sitcom for over 7 years and have seen nothing that will get me back to watching the networks period. As for the sportscasters, I just don't take them seriously at all and haven't seen one who truly has any talent in the past 10 years. I guess the last one may have been the host of that show whose signature line was "The Thrill of Victory, The agony of defeat". LOL, I was so impressed by him I can't even remember his name but you get the point.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"The people, mainly media, who are saying that the umpire needs to call out that the ball was not caught are stupid.

No they are not. It is common practice for the umpire behind the plate in that situation to call out "no catch, no catch, no catch"

[nikos1121]

"It sure looked to me like the umpire made two distinct the motions: the first to call the third strike, the second to call him out."

How does the catcher, with his back to the ump, know that?

[nikos1121]

"If the umpire calls the batter out, the batter is out."

Did he "call" him out? Everyone, catcher hitter and umpire, agree he never did.

[nikos1121]

LEt's ask people out there who have umpired that question.

[youngjim]

The people, mainly media, who are saying that the umpire needs to call out that the ball was not caught are stupid. Are they saying that if a runner misses the bag while running the bases the umpire should call that out too when he sees it?

Yup, it is not the responsibility of the umpire to tell either team how to play in a given situation. Your example of missing the bag on the bases is one example. The umpire can call the the runner safe and then out on the appeal--I've seen it happen. Same with leaving the bag too early on a caught fly ball. The opposing team has a responsibility to appeal.

The media is responsible for fanning the flames of discontent here (much as they continually carp about conservatives, etc.). Their ignorance is striking, but they are ignorant with an agenda. Their agenda is to sell more papers and get more people to watch the games.

If you watch the replay on mlb.com you can see that the ump DOES NOT turn his back on the play and is obviously following the play as AJ runs down the line. The first base ump also follows the play.

Much is made of the assertion that Chisox fans would be just as angry if the "blown" call went against them. This begs the question that the call was "blown." I disagree that the call was blown. If I was an Angel fan right now I'd want Josh Paul's head on a pike--for not tagging the runner. I'm not blaming the umpire for thinking that the ball was in the dirt.

BTW--the signal out does not indicate dead ball. The signal for a dead ball is the same as a foul--arms raised. The ball was never dead. Sure the call confused. Cry me a River. and next time tag the runner, chumpy.