ALCS

PL: Jerry Crawford (cc)
1B: Doug Eddings
2B: Ted Barrett
3B: Ron Kulpa
LF: Ed Rapuano
RF: Randy Marsh


NLCS

PL: Tim McClelland (cc)
1B: Greg Gibson
2B: Wally Bell
3B: Phil Cuzzi
LF: Larry Poncino
RF: Gerry Davis

Note: Subject to change, as position assignments have been changed twice in the last couple days and may again change before this info is publicly announced.

Hey Ump- thanks for the info...I just came across it on mlb.com too.

Couple questions you might be able to help me out with:

1- You say the position assignments have changed- what does it really matter? Is it a matter of having "better" umpires work more crucial games of the serie (i.e. 5,6, and 7)?

2- Am I the only one shocked Ed Rapuano is working an LCS and not the DS/WS? I think he is an outstanding umpire who deserves everything he gets. Have you ever worked with him? Am I off in my thinking, or is he as good as he seems on TV?

Thanks!

I didn't know mlb.com even had it posted. We get the info well before the public and mlb.com publishes it.

What I meant by positions having changed is that sometimes the assignments are told us with one guy listed as, say, working LF but then he's changed to work the plate in the opening game--something like that.

Ed can work either the DS or the WS or both. Not every umpire working the WS worked the DS that year. In fact, you may see that this year, but I'm not releasing that info yet. wink

Hmmmm interesting....I guess I should keep that in mind wink

Is there any particular reason MLB waits so long to release the playoff crews? Sometimes fans get the crews early from "other sources" but MLB waits until the day before to release crews. Any reason for that? Thanks as always

MLB umpires are told who's working the division series about a week or two before the season ends. We know the LCS assignments when the season concludes, and the World Series assignments shortly thereafter.

Fans who get the info from "other sources" are those who usually are somehow connected to umpires in one way or another, because this info is kept very close to the breast, so to speak. I myself have this info well before I even post it here, but I usually wait until just before I know or assume it will become public, mainly because with Google, it's very easy for someone to find this info, and if MLB found out that this site published this info so far in advance, they would be quite angry about it. In fact, I wouldn't doubt if they pursued Cyd or Jim to demand who was posting this info (Jim and Cyd know who I am, but I don't need MLB making a stink about this). Because of this, I do not wish to make waves for them, so I choose to wait a while.

There are several reasons why this information isn't released to the public that far in advance. Among these reasons is money. From odds makers to those who play the game, someone may wish to capitalize on who is scheduled to umpire such high-profile, important games. Any hint whatsoever of impropriety or conflict must be avoided. Believe it or not, there's money wagered in Vegas based on who's working the plate, etc. I don't know all the details, but there is a lot of stuff there going on involving this information, as weird as it may sound.

I've heard this reason as the justification for not releasing the full season umpire schedule for all 68 guys. I know people who know guys in the bigs, and that's usually how I get what little information I get ahead of time. That does sound weird, but I don't think the plate umpire has as much influence on a game as people think, especially in the playoffs.

Might be an easy week for da ump.

Might be. You never know. wink

A shame that such an awful call by Doug Eddings and Ed Rapuano affects the outcome of the game.

If I made such an obvious and egregious error in my job, I would offer my resignation before the boss asked me for it. And if I didn't, I would be asked to resign within one day. And if I didn't, I would be fired. And I would deserve it.

Will Doug Eddings and Ed Rapuano offer to resign?

Sorry, but I'm disagreeing with you. I was bitching about the umpiring all game, and I originally thought the ball was caught on that play.

From every angle I ORIGINALLY saw, it sure looked like it was caught. However, when FOX showed that close-up shot, I was able to use my TIVO (God love those things!!!) to freeze it and play it back frame-by-frame. I must've done that at least 20 times until I noticed something that can be explained by the simple laws of physics: the ball ricocheted off the ground and into the mitt. The ONLY way for that ball to go on such an angle into the mitt is if it hit something, in this case the ground.

Also, one interesting thing that the Angels catcher did when he tried to catch it: he took his mitt and twisted it in such a manner that he tried to "push" it into his mitt a la an ice cream cone type of catch. In that case, the ball made contact with the ground as well.

Final verdict: the ball was NOT caught.

What do you think, Ump?

[ October 12, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

If you had a ground-level camera you could tell for sure. My view was that it was caught before it hit the ground. The glove hit the ground but the ball didn't.

Joe,

Comcast Sports here just showed a huge close-up shot, even closer in than FOX's. Comcast's shot shows the ball clearly hitting the dirt. Even a couple local sports guys here who said the umpire blew the call are now retracting their statements and admitting the Comcast shot proved them wrong.

First of all, the ball was clearly caught. To claim to see something other than a catch is flat-out wrong.

In the umpires' press conference, umpire supervisor Rich Rieker claims that Doug Eddings ruled "the ball was trapped."

In the same press conference about three minutes later, crew chief Jerry Crawford says that the ruling on the field was that "the ball hit the ground and bounced into the glove."

Both of these things cannot be true. While one could be true, one of these men is lying. And if one of these men is lying to cover up a bad call, then both of them conceivably could be.

I stand by my call for resignation, although we all know that will never happen because I'm not sure I've ever seen an umpire admit he was wrong.

Sorry, Red, but you're proven wrong. Comcast's big blow-up proved the ball was NOT caught. The evidence is irrefutable now with that angle, which will hopefully be making the media rounds soon.

I originally thought the ball WAS caught, but my TIVO told me otherwise, but Comcast's zoom shot proved to everyone that it wasn't.

Case closed.

[ October 12, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I have not seen Comcast's replay, but if it DOES show that the ball hit the ground, I will admit that I was wrong... unlike an umpire.

However, I haven't seen that replay, and the replays that I have seen (Fox and ESPN) do NOT show the ball hitting the ground.

Also, the ball changing direction is NOT proof that it hit the ground. If the ball is spinning and begins to make contact with the glove (ie. starts to "catch" the glove's surface), the spin will cause the ball to change direction as it comes to rest within the glove.

I look forward to seeing a Comcast replay showing the ball hit the ground. These umpires are the best in the business at what they do and it would be nice if this controversy weren't a controversy. But no matter what, I know we won't hear an umpire say he was wrong.

How is the discrepancy between Rich Rieker's and Jerry Crawford's comments explained?

It seems in this case that the call was right, but the mechanics were wrong in Doug not signaling that the ball was not caught.

Well, as I said, Comcast Sportsnet DID show a big zoom shot, even closer in than FOX's, and the viewer can definitely see the ball hitting the ground, which explains why it angled up into the mitt.

FOX only once showed a big close-up, and that's what began to change my mind, so I rewound the old TIVO and did the frame-by-frame of this close-up. You should have heard me saying, \"Holy shit! The ball hit the ground!\"

That I can't answer. Maybe Ump can.

If I don't see it on ESPN I'll check for it on Comcast Sportsnet here (their next \"SportsNite\" airs in about an hour).

This is a bit of an overreaction. wink

Joe,

Comcast just had a post-game interview with Doug Eddings, Jerry Crawford, and Umpire Supervisor Rich Rieker (sp?). Interesting comments there. Doug looked very uncomfortable, too.

One reporter even asked the guys when A.J. could be called out. The question was if there was a certain time at which the batter is automatically out. Rieker responded by saying, "Once he reaches the dugout."

Boy! This is some big-time shit here.

You know, it just wasn't smart of the catcher to assume that there was an out call. If it's reasonably close, you had better pay attention to the umpire. If he doesn't give an out call, just a strike call, then you just tag the guy. Catchers do that all the time when they are unsure.....

I don't think the issue is if the ball was caught or not.
The fact is, if Paul heard from Eddings that the ball was trapped, AJ would have been out by 85 feet at first base, and they are playing the 10th.

Eddings did not use improper mechanics on that play. It is just unfortunate that the signal for strike 3 is the same as the signal for out.

I know when I umpire, I verbally will say that's a catch when it's strike 3 at the dirt, but I don't have 55,000 people making noise at one of my games.

I've seen many MLB catchers quickly slap a tag on a batter when they have a strike 3 in a dirt, even without waiting for the umpire's call, just to be on the safe side. If Paul did that, than no one is talking about this at all.

Josh

Oh the confussion!! What is interesting to me on this play are the mechanics that were used. It seems that more guys are now calling stikes using the the same signal as an "out" as opposed to signaling out to the side.

In this case it might have been made more clear as to what Doug's call was if he chose to use different signals. There isn't a set standard at the Major League level.

I have no doubt he got it right in his mind but the general public including Soscia didn't interpret his signalling well.

His hand-out-to-the-side generally means a swinging strike and not an uncaught ball. That being the case, there then should have been no "out/strike" call after he put his arm out to the side. If in fact he felt the ball had been caught, his second signal should have been telling us the ball was caught...but it wasn't so his signalling contradicted himself.

He obviously felt the ball was uncaught, it then would have made more sense to signal the strike and come up with a safe sign emphatically telling everyone very clearly the ball was not caught.

The bottom line is Doug can work and he knows his shit. In this case the signalling wasn't the best and we all saw the result. Unfortunate way to end the game.

Should he resign, no - give your head a shake.

Tyler Hoffman
Former Professional Umpire

First, he did clearly catch the ball....There's no question. NONE! This is disgusting, I'm so sick of Umpires acting like Mall Cops. They get a little power, and they go WAY overboard.

Second, even if you buy into the "he didn't catch it" BS....that doesn't matter anyway, he SWUNG AT THE PITCH!!! What happens when you swing at a pitch and you don't hit it???? STRIKE!

Gawd, I sure hope our ump is not Doug Eddings! We still love you if you are! I'm glad the call went our way, but I hate to win a game like that.

The right call should have been made. MS, you shouldn't be happy that a botched call gave your team a win that they would not have gotten if the call was made correctly.

And our Ump seems knowledgeable about all rules, so I wouldn't think he would make a bogus call like that.

[ October 13, 2005, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Merloni26 ]

Did you read my post? I said "I hate to win a game like that".
Obviously I'm happy the Sox won the game, but do I wish the ending was different? Yes.

[ October 13, 2005, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: MiamiSpartan ]

Everyone reacted the same way, interpreted the play call the same way, and somehow its our fault for not being mind-readers?

How can a hundred year old game have such ambiguous signals? Out should be out. Period. None of this if he strikes out swinging it means this, but when there are no stars in the sky I hop on one foot, unless it is a leap year.

Sorry, Merloni, but you are wrong. I had this opinion until I saw our local Comcast replay of this. The ball clearly hit the ground. You cannot deny the physical evidence. The proof is there.

2+2=4 and not 5.

Sorry, still don't buy it. And I won't. But if you choose to believe that, there's one more fact that cannot be denied by anyone. He swung and missed. That's called a strike.

Merloni, I didn't watch the game, but if the catcher did not catch the ball before hitting the ground, it is strike three, but not necessarily out. As long as there are two outs and/or no runner on first, the batter has to be called out by either tagging the batter or throwing the ball to first base, if the ball is not cleanly caught. Since the catcher's mitt was most likely on or near the ground when the ball was in the mitt, he should have waited to hear the out call as well as strike three before rolling the ball to the mound, even if he is certain that he caught the ball cleanly, since umpires sometimes will incorrectly call close plays. In fact, many times, a catcher will tag the batter anyway in close calls like that just to be safe. If the problem was ambiguous signals or calls from the umpire, then that should be looked into and changed. Or better yet, make three strikes an out, period.

[ October 13, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Most catchers will tag the hitter anyway, if he thinks it's a close call as to whether he fielded the pitch cleanly...
It doesn't happen often, but there are many times in baseball history where a pitcher has struck out 4 batters in an inning....

[ October 13, 2005, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: MiamiSpartan ]

Maybe I let my anger get ahead of me....because at different times, I see Jason Varitek tap someone with his glove after he catches a ball, and I never knew why he did it. I guess know I do.

The ball did not hit the ground. it went right into the catcher's glove.

[ October 13, 2005, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Methead ]

When do the rest of us get to see this super blow-up shot? Surely Fox and ESPN have such technology at their disposal?

Even IF the ball hit the ground, what seems to have happened is Eddings called Pierzynski OUT (so Josh Paul and everyone else thought by his actions) and then was cowed into altering his own call by the mere act of Pierzynski running to first. Total crap -- and I'm rooting for the White Sox!

I watched the game last night, and have seen the replay about a dozen times since. The batter swung. It was strike three. The catcher caught the ball very clearly and conclusively. The ump signaled strike three, but apparently didn't verbalize it (maybe because it was such a clear out to him as well). Any way you look at this the White Sox got a 28th out, and they capitalized on it. Hopefully this will not wind up being a critical turning point for the series.

BTW, has anyone else found the first two games kind of, well, dull?

Sorry, but the evidence shows otherwise. You cannot dispute the facts, which are that the ball did, in fact, make contact with the ground. How can you continue to deny what is clearly shown on a replay? I like what Dan Patrick of ESPN said, where he admitted he changed his mind after seeing a close-up shot that showed the ball hitting the ground. As he and others stated, the early replays couldn't reveal this, but later ones did.

As to why FOX won't blow it up even more, or why they won't show what Comcast showed, I can't answer that. It wouldn't surprise me if their bias prevented them from being straightforward about all of this.

You make the call!

Which of these statements is the most ridiculous comment ever posted on this forum?

Asking for the resignation from an umpire for an incorrect call. OR Umpires never admit to being wrong.

Obviously the closest you've ever come to interacting with a real umpire is watching ESPN Baseball Tonight from your lazyboy. It ain't as easy as it looks partner.

TRG
also, an ex-minor league umpire

To whom are you directing your comments? I think only one person here has claimed he is/was an umpire, and that was Tyler above.

Hey all - interesting thread. I enjoy the comments.

I'm not an umpire, but I have been closer to one than my La-Z-Boy. :-)

I think umpires do an incredible job, which I said before. But I think they do NOT admit when they are wrong (which, as humans, they will be at some point).

I take back the call for Doug Eddings to resign. That was a gut reaction without realizing how close/complex the situation is. BUT... if I made an egregious error in an important spot in my profession, I WOULD resign.

I still haven't seen a replay showing the ball hit the ground, but I have heard enough people SAY that they saw it that I believe there is a replay that makes it appear that the ball bounced. Either way - it's a close and difficult call to get right in super slow motion, we can only imagine how difficult it is to get right at live speed with no replays and a split second to decide.

After watching the entire thing over and over, I think Pierzynski got the best of Eddings. I think he faked him out and Eddings got nervous and froze up. I think Eddings signaled out (Josh Paul couldn't see it anyway), I think he didn't say "out" or "it hit the ground", I think he saw Pierzynski running to first, and I think THEN he decided the ball hit the ground. I think he got nervous in a big spot, which happens with people who aren't that experienced.

This is why MLB umpires are rewarded with post-season slots based on seniority and merit and whatever else, and I bet we don't see Eddings get post-season assignments in the future at the same rate as his contemporaries.

So there's my amateur take on it 18 hours later.

Sorry, RedSalt's comments got me a little fired up. I guess I really am a red a**

I am of the opinion, after seeing various replays, including one blown-up shot (I don't know if it was the Comcast shot or not) that the ball did not hit the ground. I think that what the ball hit, when it appears to change direction or take a bounce, was the webbing of the glove lying on the ground. I think that the bit of dirt that was kicked up was because of the movement of the glove along the ground.

I saw a couple of side-angle replays, including one that seemed fairly close to ground-level, which indicate to me that the ball was still descending and off the ground as it passed out of view and into the glove.

I suppose my mind could be changed by seeing an extremely slow close-up replay in high-definition. wink

I also have to question the catcher, Paul -- if he had any doubt whatsoever he should've tagged the batter immediately, or thrown it to first, or at least turned to the ump and verified the call.

I also think the umpire Eddings screwed up. His "mechanic" was the same one he previously used on a couple of balls in the dirt where the batter swung and missed and was tagged by the catcher, according to a couple replays I saw.

I think it's time for uniform signals from all umpires. This thing where some of them are waving arms and pumping fists all over the place on balls and strikes and others barely move a muscle has got to go.

Most importantly, the call meant nothing if the Angels retired the next hitter, Joe Crede. So ultimately, the blame for the loss has to sit with the Angels themselves.

If you like pitching match-ups, then they've been pretty good games. The Sox have run themselves out of a few innings so far, but their pitching has been great!

The claim that is bogus is that the Angels gave up on the play only after they saw the ump make his "punch out" motion. In fact, watching the replay, let's be clear about the sequence of events:

1) AJP swings & misses for a third strike.

2) Josh Paul immediately stands up and heads for the dugout. Meanwhile, AJP starts walking to his dugout and the ump signifies strike three by pointing to his right. Escobar also begins running to the dugout at this point. Ump has NOT made a punch out motion at this point.

3) As ump starts to make what looks like a punch out motion, AJP turns to look at him as if "huh?" and immediately starts to run to first, with Paul (already out of the batters box, ball out of his hand, trickling in front of a running AJP) not even paying attention to whether the ump was saying anything, making an "out" sign, or anything. Paul gave up on the play IMMEDIATELY. He ran out of there like a bat out of hell. It may or may not have occurred to him that the umpire could have called a trap ball -- or that the ball MAY have hit the dirt -- but that's irrelevant. No umpire can tell on a ball that close, and I'll wager there's no perfect guidance in the rulebook either. He probably made the judgment based on Paul's positioning, the pitch's trajectory, and ... very possibly ... on Paul's arrogant decision not to tag in that obvious tag situation before an "out" call had been made (wasn't Rowand tagged out after a strike in the dirt just one batter earlier?).

The point is, the BALL WAS OUT OF PAUL'S GLOVE by the time the so-called "out" call was made. Even if Eddings had never made the punch-out move, nobody from the Angels would have gotten to the ball in time to throw AJP out. He didn't throw the ball away because of the punch-out move (that he never saw). He threw it away because of the strike call. Bad mistake.

And Sciocia is flatly misrepresented what happened by saying that the sequence of events was 1) strike, 2) "punchout" motion, then 3) "give up on play." It was 1) strike, 2) give up on play and 3) "punchout"/AJP runs. Watch it again on MLB.com if you have to. Josh Paul gave up on the play far too early. The reason AJP ran was because he was expecting to get tagged & didn't. Paul should have tagged.

Now IF Eddings did say "out" then this all is moot, of course, but nobody who could have heard him seems to claim that he did. And I think Eddings/baseball is at fault for not anticipating this situation (why have a strike three call that is the same as an out call? why not verbalize when no catch is made??) The umps' jobs should not be to make what's going on a big mystery, it should be to clarify as much as possible to everyone involved, particularly during the course of a play. Imagine a tagout on a rundown being made but not called immediately, allowing a runner to score. Now imagine it in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th.

Here's the best article I've read so far, from (of all places) the OC Register. Give him credit, Pierzynski was alert enough to take off

P.S. Yes, I'm a homer. GO SOX!!!

Welcome Bridgeport! GO GO SOX!!

Attention Chicago area residents: WFLD-TV (FOX Channel 32) after tonight's NLCS game has an exclusive, one-on-one interview with Umpire Doug Eddings. On the preview they showed, Doug looked quite the hottie, unlike last night in the post-game press conference.

Suffice it to say, I think he's rather adorable! I noticed that he's single, too. Now, could this be our resident Ump? After all, Ump has been conspicuously absent during the ALCS. Could he...?

[ October 13, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I assume that means there are strict standards in other leagues -- Minors, NCAA etc... That makes it even weirder, that the regs would be thrown out once an umpire joins MLB. Where's the logic in that?

Agreed!

The mechanic I always used on a dropped 3rd strike and was recommended by supervisors is point to the side the same as on strike 1 and 2. Then give a safe mechanic with some sort of verbal recognition that the ball is not caught. But everyone does things a little different.

At any rate, a decent catcher at any level is going to jump up and tag the hitter if there is any question, I'm not sure why this wasn't done.

By the way, I"m surprised and very glad that Doug Eddings has made a KIND OF admission that he erred.

He says he wished he had been more definitive with his call that the ball was dropped. If he HAD been definitive and made both a signal and clear verbal indication that the ball was dropped, Josh Paul throws to first and Pierzynski is out by 80 feet. The game goes to extra innings, and all the analysis of whether the ball actually hit the ground doesn't matter.

That being said, if Josh Paul just tags the runner regardless of call, the game goes to extra innings and all this doesn't matter.

So, I'm glad that Doug Eddings has taken some responsibility for the call, or at least the call's results, by saying he should be more definitive with his call. Doug, if you are OUR umpire, nice job. Better late than never, I guess.

I guess I just wanted to see Mark Buehrle pitch into the 10th inning. One of the best games in ALCS history is when Britt Burns pitched into the 10th inning in 1983, and I was kind of hoping to see a repeat of that. :-)

Except when that dickhead Tito Landrum of the Orioles hit that home run that won the game for Baltimore. :mad:

About Buehrle, though, I agree with you. His performance was masterful--probably the best game I've ever seen him pitch. If the Series goes 6 games, he's scheduled to start in game 6 next Tuesday in Chicago.

A couple interesting stats about Buehrle's performance Wednesday night:

1. He was on the mound for a total of 46 minutes.
2. Game time = 2:34 (in game 2 of the ALDS, his game time was 2:28 - damn, he works fast!)
3. Of the 99 pitches he threw, 77 of them were strikes.

Paul very well may have "given up" because HE KNEW HE CAUGHT IT, with no "arrogance" involved. And if player "arrogance" enters into an umpire's mind, that is another example of umpire arrogance that has been plaguing MLB for years.

Ideally, should Paul have played it safe and tagged AJP? Of course. But an ump who gets "nervous in a big spot" certainly doesn't deserve playoff assignments. Judging by his transparent non-answers at the postgame media Q&A, a job in the Bush White House might be in order.