Worst umpire call ever?

[Bill V]

Everyone who saw last night's White Sox/Angels game--Where does that call rank in the annals of bad calls in baseball history? Many are already declaring it "worst ever". I don't think it's that bad, but I think it ranks in the top 5. Actually, maybe the call itself wasn't that awful--he made a mistake. But for him (and the umpiring supervisor) to then come out and, instead of admitting his mistake, claim that they viewed replay and still stand by that call is atrocious. Their nonsense about him not signaling an out was a joke--he looked like Mike Brown trying to tell Congress about what a spectacular job he did on Katrina. And like Brown, it's time for Eddings to turn in his face mask and chest protector.



This might not have been quite as bad as 1985 Game 6 Don Denkinger, or even the 1970 Game 2 out call at home--but man, it ranks right up there.



And for the record--I'm not an Angels fan, or a Sox hater. I'm cheering for the Sox to win this series. But moreso than that, I'm a baseball fan. And today, I'm embarassed for our sport. Umpiring like that does more harm to our game than any steroid scandal could ever do.



Other thoughts from any other baseball fans?

 

[Jeff C]

It was awful that the game ended like that. I think that, had nothing happened, it wouldn't have been that big of a deal, but that would have been the final out before extra innings. Having been a catcher for 10+ years, I know that if there's even a hint of the ball touching the ground, you tag the runner, but once he's called out and turns toward the dugout, we've been taught that he can't then turn around and head towards first.



On steroids, I personally don't care if they take em. I do think there should be an asterisk in the record books, but I could care less if they were 10ft tall and had tails, as long as it was entertaining.



And for the record, I'm a Bravos fan...

 

[Nelson Atwell]

I didn't see it, but I read about it. Bad calls are made almost every week of the season. Why should this week be any different. The important thing to remember is that baseball is a game, and it is supposed to be fun.



I pretty much stopped watching all sports the day that Tom Landry was fired from Dallas. Sports stopped being fun for me on that day. It has only gotten worse since then.

 

[Heather inOC]

YES

 

[John Mastrocco]

The catcher is the one that made the mistake by not tagging the batter. Molina would have done it. But I guess that's just one of many reasons Paul is third on the depth chart and Molina is first.



It might have gone better if Paul hadn't turned his glove to the ground when the ball came in. It made it look even more like a trap when he did that - which, IMO, is why the third base umpire couldn't make the call. On first look I thought it was a trap for just that reason. And that was looking at it from the front. I still wouldn't say 100% positively the ball never left his glove.



The Home Plate Umpire had the worst angle in the house for that particular call becuase of the way Paul turned his glove. Try to imagine what it looked like from behind the plate. The worst thing he did was give the benefit of the doubt to the home team - which if you watch baseball enough happens more often than not.



The biggest mistake that was made by the Umpires was not conferring with the third base Ump immediately instead of 5 minutes later.



And the batter figured he hadn't heard any call and the catcher didn't tag him and, being a catcher himself, he figured, "what the hell?" and took first. What's the worst that could happen? Get sent back to the dugout?



Since the ball is immediately hidden by the glove as it is turned to the ground can you be positive it never left the glove? I can't say the Umpires are wrong defending the call after the fact either.



IMO, not even close to the worst call ever. It's just part of the game.

 

[Steve Kaufman]

Actually the worst call ever was actually in the Yankees vs Angels series. The play when robinson cano was called out because he was out of the baseline was BS. Next time he should just run straight through the first baseman and break his arm like bubba crosby did to Brian Roberts of Baltimore.

 

[Bill V]

Steve--I agree that call was dubious. But there's two big differences between that call and this one. First, there's no replay showing rather conclusively that the call was blown, so it's still a matter of interpretation/opinion. Second, on that play, the actions of the Yankees on the field during the play weren't influenced by the call of the umpire, to their detriment. On this call, the umpire rather clearly signalled "out" with his hand. He also didn't call "no catch", which is the accepted standard means of informing the catcher of the call, seeing that the catcher can't see the umpire's arm signal with his back turned to the ump.



Rocco--I disagree with your assertion that Paul should have tagged him. The out signal was made, and the play was over. Tagging him at that point is akin to a football defensive player seeing a ball carrier come close to having his knee touch the ground, hearing the referee blow his whistle, then hitting him anyway, just to make sure that he's down. Granted, in football, the rule is there because of the chance of injury on a late hit--but in that situation, it's not that much of a stretch to see the catcher making such a tag to make sure he's out, doing it more agressively than desired, and either having the runner stumble and get injured, or having the runner get upset about it to the point of escalting into a physical confrontation between the teams later. Once the player is called out, not only didn't he need to tag him, but he shouldn't have tagged him. That said, it was a smart play on Przynski's (sp?) part to force the issue by heading toward first.



Like I said, I have no problem with the umpire blowing the call and ruling that it wasn't a catch. That's an honest mistake, no problem. If he had then not signaled the out, and yelled "no catch", it would have been fine. But instead, he signaled the out, then saw the runner take off, and got caught up in the home town excitement and changed his call, after the Angels had no chance to act based on that.



Jeff C--Technically, per the rules, if a runner turns toward the dugout, he's not out until he reaches the dugout. Up until that time, he can take off toward first at any time. (Same thing goes for a runner who misses home plate. Up until the time he enters the dugout--or until he is tagged out, or until a runner behind him touches home plate--he can go up to home plate and touch it at any time, regardless of where he started walking.)

 

[TomT]

I don't know if it was a bad call but I agree it should not have ended a game that way. How many times have we seen umpires call someone out when a fielder doesn't actually step on the bag but is just assumed to have done so? This call was to nick-picky. The batter swung at 3rd strike and should have been called out - end of game.

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

It wouldn't be the post season without controversy. Regardless of the motion of the ball (it looks like the ball changes flight as it enters the glove...as opposed to bouncing off the ground as the ump stated in the interiew), the ump blew the call. He should have given an indication of the ball being live. He did ring up the batter with his hand motion (as he did all night).



It was a bad decision to let the runner take the base.



I am pulling for the ChiSox, btw.

 

[Chris Petrilla]

Having grown up 10 miles from Anaheim Stadium and the Anaheim Angels (yes, that still bugs us tried and true Dodger fans), all I can say is that from a video standpoint, the call was bad. I am not an Angel fan, never have been. In fact I would like to see the White Sox get into the World Series.



However, I am a fan of baseball and calls are blown all of the time. What you can't hear on the video is an "out" call and I missed most of the postgame talk to confirm what was called. Obviously, from the hand movement, to the rest of the players on the field, he was out. But, Paul had is back to him when he made the movement, so did he hear an "out" call?

If he did, then the umpires need to fess up, if there was no call, then Paul screwed up by not tagging him/throwing to first.



But, I do agree with Mike Scioscia, that is not why they lost the game.

 

[Frank Marano]

You dont loose games with one bad call. If one bad call causes you to lose a game, you weren't setting up a win in the first place......

 

[Austin Tatious]

Check out SI.coms Top !0 "Playoff Controversies" Last night's play made it.

 

[C W]

Who cares...Hockey's on!!

 

[Richard L]

Bill,

In the replay I saw, it appeared that the catcher made a clean catch of the 3rd strike, but it was a very close call that took a slow-motion view to really tell for sure, and I'm sure some will even agrue that.



Unfortunately the umpires do not have slow-motion eyesight, and baseball does not allow an instant-replay for disputed calls. The game does not lend itself to instant-replay in most situations. If it did, we would not see all the, bat-slinging, dirt-kicking, and in-your-face arguing going on. That all part of the game.



...Rich

 

[Jeff C]

I think instant replay should be allowed in baseball, but only in situations like this. I mean, say I ground out in the infield, but just stay on first, and the umpire decides that he was wrong because I'm obviously right, is that how the game should be played? It's pretty much the same thing, an umpire reversing his call, which isn't allowed without conferring with other officials. The fact that he signaled an out showed that the inning was over. It doesn't matter if the runner ran around all the bases. He's out, the inning's over, the ball is dead.

 

[John Mastrocco]

Bill,

I don't remember Paul looking at the Umpire when the call was made (correct me if I am wrong.) If that's the case there was no way for him to know the Ump called the batter out unless he said it - and no one I've heard has said there was any audible "Out" call (or that it would even be heard with the crowd noise.)



Since that call, on the various sports programs, I've heard several ex-catchers say they would have made the tag. Just the routine thing to do whenever a ball is that close to the ground, is the way one catcher put it. I've also heard at least one say Paul didn't do anything he wouldn't have done.



Bad call? Maybe. But there seems to be some disagreement even among catchers what the proper play by Paul should have been.



BTW: The Umpire has now said he will change the way he calls a player "out." While not admitting he made a bad call, he has basically said the way he makes calls could cause confusion. So it's not a total loss.

 

[TrainTrac]

Nope. Worst call ever:



26 October 1985, St. Louis Cardinals vs. Kansas City Royals, World Series Game 6, 9th inning.



A date that will live in infamy for Cardinals fans!!!:angry:

 

[John Mastrocco]

So, let me get this straight...

Out of all the WS games played prior to 1969 there were only 2 bad calls?

 

[Bill V]

Andy--Apparently it doesn't live in THAT much infamy, as you didn't get the game right. It was Game 6, not Game 7.



RichardL--Like I said earlier, I have no problem with the fact that the umpire blew the call--it was close enough to fall within the realm of reasonable human error. In fact, I'll even grant that there's a chance that he might have gotten it right--it appears to me that the ball bounced up off the leather, not off the ground, but it's not conclusive. What I have a problem with is that he then signaled the out (which I'll admit that Paul couldn't see--but which all his teammates and all the other umpires saw and reacted to, and Paul reacted to those reactions), he failed to call "no catch" (which is standard practice for umpires in that situation), and then after the fact, instead of acknowledging that he messed up (like Denkinger did in '85), he and his umpire cronies claimed that he got it right. I feel that what actually happened is that Eddings thought the ball was caught, signaled the out, but then when he saw Przyzinski take off, he thought he might have blown the call, and he then lacked the guts to stick to his initial call.



ChrisP and Fmarano--Scioscia said what he said because he has to--both to get his team's mindset right to concentrate on the remaining games in the series, and because MLB's gag rules prohibit him from expressing his true opinions. (Some of his post-press conference comments indicate pretty clearly that he's not buying that "that's not why they lost the game" crap.) And I always hate it when people dismiss a bad, game-deciding call with "that's not why they lost the game"--both because it's not true, and because it's far too dismissive of the umpiring incompetence.



Rocco--No, there were plenty of bad calls prior to 1969. It's just that there wasn't the video and photographic technology available to review them to prove (or to highly suggest) the calls' accuracy/inaccuracy. When you combine that with the fact that few people/listmakers are alive who remember those older ones, and you get the bias toward recent history.

 

[Bill Ellis]

Saw the slow-mo replay last night and it looks like the ball bounces into the catcher's glove.