5/13 @ Baltimore Orioles

[Cocos Disciples]

4 in a row...fack.

[a700hitter]

f***ing horrible swing by Lowell.

 

Horrible loss.

It's horrible that they score runs in the first inning and go into shutdown mode again.

[Jayhawk Bill]

The bat stayed on his shoulder.

 

Yeah, they said that, too...

 

...actually, it didn't quite, but it certainly wasn't a swinging strike.

 

If the Orioles' MASN team is questioning Diaz, the call sucked.

 

***

 

Well, it's been a pleasure bemoaning this BS with all of you tonight.

 

Later.

[Thumper]

I'm getting sick of this win 2 lose 4 ball play. The damn Rays are catching up.

 

f*** it may be only May but this is still rediculous.

 

That homeplate ump is a JOKE.

[TheKilo]

4 in a row...fack.

 

3?

[TheKilo]

I'm getting sick of this win 2 lose 4 ball play. The damn Rays are catching up.

 

f*** it may be only May but this is still rediculous.

 

That homeplate ump is a JOKE.

 

The Rays have already caught up.

 

Homeplate ump wasn't a joke, Ortiz swung the bat and then pouted like a little bitch afterwards.

[ksushi]

I don't think he pouted. He got thrown out and he got pissed. At least someone is showing some emotion right now. They need a fire lit under them.

[redsoxrules]

after watching the replay several times , ortiz's strikeout call was the correct call and it wasent even close IMO

[Jayhawk Bill]

Homeplate ump wasn't a joke' date=' Ortiz swung the bat and then pouted like a little bitch afterwards.[/quote']

 

Laz Diaz called, overall, an excellent game.

 

But do you really think that Ortiz swung the bat? As I posted, even Gary Thorne and Jim Palmer were very surprised by the call. It's not often that the opposing team's broadcasters disagree with an umpire on a call critical to their own team.

 

The rulebook is silent on this: Rule 2.0 just states,

 

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which—

(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;

( Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike

zone;

© Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;

(d) Is bunted foul;

(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;

(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or

(g) Becomes a foul tip.

 

without further defining "struck at." How "struck at" could involve a checked swing where no part of the bat ever passed through the strike zone and the wrists were not broken eludes me; I've seen those used as unofficial criteria to determine whether or not a batter "offered" at a pitched ball. I've seen many batters check their swing as Papi did and have a pitch be called a ball. I don't get it, just as Thorne and Palmer didn't get it.

 

But you do--do you have any cause for that other than the absolute authority granted to umpires on balls and strikes?

[redsoxrules]

interesting , I always tought the rule was that if nay part of the bat croses home plate its a strike , wich is what ortiz did , but by reading the rules you just mentioned it dosent say anything about the bat crossing the plate , just the strike zone wich he obviously didn't do .

 

interesting

[Jayhawk Bill]

interesting , I always tought the rule was that if nay part of the bat croses home plate its a strike , wich is what ortiz did , but by reading the rules you just mentioned it dosent say anything about the bat crossing the plate , just the strike zone wich he obviously didn't do .

 

interesting

 

For clarification, the Official Rules state neither, just what I quoted above...

 

...a different way of saying what I'm trying to say is,

 

The bat stayed on his shoulder.

 

It's a judgment call--but how do you call a strike if there's no swing and the ball misses the zone?

[YAZMAN]

It's a judgment call--but how do you call a strike if there's no swing and the ball misses the zone?

 

Papi's problem was he was way "weight-forward" on his stride - he lunged at the pitch. He wasn't making an attempt at the ball but couldn't keep the bat barrel back because of his forward momentum. The bat barrel did cross the plane of the plate.

 

Had he been able to fall away from the plate or make any movement backward, he may have got the call. All his movement was toward the pitch/pitcher, so he got boned on the call. To the ump he probably looked more like he got fooled by the pitch than he was clearly attempting to get away from it.

[TheKilo]

I really don't have a problem with the call in and of itself, although I would have liked to have seen him appeal to third and not make the call on his own.

 

Why is Papi immune from criticism? His arguing of balls and strikes has become old hat and once he got tossed he stayed in the dugout and pouted. That's not lighting a fire. He's lucky Mills held him back otherwise he would have been suspended.

 

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/2004/07/20/4tmj97oB.jpg

 

Remember that ********?