Kemp catch! (or not) ?

[Maxbialystock]

It isn't important but the thought that it hit the wall first should not be simply brushed off. My thought last night when I saw that catch was that of something very hard hitting some very hard metal does not make that sound. It confused me. The video I think pretty much shows that in slow motion it hit the wall first.

 

The "thought" that it hit the wall first means to me you are imagining it. No way, no how did it hit the wall first. First, the slow motion I'm seeing shows the ball going directly into the glove. Second, the glove is not positioned in a way that would allow the ball to be caught coming off the wall.

 

Way too much "thought" has gone into this thread.

[moonslav59]

The "thought" that it hit the wall first means to me you are imagining it. No way, no how did it hit the wall first. First, the slow motion I'm seeing shows the ball going directly into the glove. Second, the glove is not positioned in a way that would allow the ball to be caught coming off the wall.

 

Way too much "thought" has gone into this thread.

 

To me, the angles from the side show it going straight into the glove as the glove slams into the metal on the wall.

 

I'm pretty sure it was a catch, but I can't be certain. One angle is not conclusive.

[cp176]

The "thought" that it hit the wall first means to me you are imagining it. No way, no how did it hit the wall first. First, the slow motion I'm seeing shows the ball going directly into the glove. Second, the glove is not positioned in a way that would allow the ball to be caught coming off the wall.

 

Way too much "thought" has gone into this thread.

 

 

I'm imagining what I am seeing? A little out of character for me. I don't care what you or moon or anyone else happens to think about this one. I am absolutely positive of what I have seen and anyone who thinks that there is no doubt that they got this one right is wrong. Some folks here just amaze me at how often they think they are right.

[notin]

I really don't want to say the umps got it "wrong" because they make those calls in the fly without the benefit of taking 24 hours to scour the internet for every viewpoint imaginable. If we need to say the call was "wrong," it's one of the most understandable wrongs most of us will ever see...

[cp176]

To me, the angles from the side show it going straight into the glove as the glove slams into the metal on the wall.

 

I'm pretty sure it was a catch, but I can't be certain. One angle is not conclusive.

 

 

You see this is ok for me. "I can't be certain. One angle is not conclusive." That to me says that you in fact accept the fact that you might be wrong on occasion. "I'm pretty sure it was a catch" - that is good. I'm not certain that it wasn't. there have been a number of people who have now posted on this topic and almost all of them have said that oh ya there is a chance that they got it wrong. I don't always agree with those people but I do respect them and their opinions. Now I fully understand that I am hanging on to the topic way too long but there is a point here to be made and it is all about respect for our fellow posters. I'm guilty of saying the wrong things from time to time but I can honestly say that the people I don't seem to have any connection with are the ones who think that they are always right. I will let this go now but I have a newsflash for those folks - You are the ones who are wrong.

[cp176]

I really don't want to say the umps got it "wrong" because they make those calls in the fly without the benefit of taking 24 hours to scour the internet for every viewpoint imaginable. If we need to say the call was "wrong," it's one of the most understandable wrongs most of us will ever see...

 

 

I agree with you entirely and I think that given the moment in which it happened the call was the right one to make. Max has said that I am imagining that the ball hit the wall first. I do have a good imagination.

[Hitch]

I'm not really sure how anyone can see the replays and not surmise that it was almost certainly a catch. Each to their own.

[cp176]

I'm not really sure how anyone can see the replays and not surmise that it was almost certainly a catch. Each to their own.

 

It almost certainly was. I 'm not really sure how anyone can see the replays that I saw and surmise that there is a possibility that it wasn't. back at you - to each his own.

[Hitch]

As long as we are all agreed it almost certainly was.

[cp176]

As long as we are all agreed it almost certainly was.

 

Hey look I know how you feel about the last word here Hitch and I have given you plenty of positive credit from time to time so having you disagree with me is really no big deal. There have been a number of posters here who have seen the same video that I have seen and it seems fairly clear to them that that might have been a blown call. It is possible. If you think that there is no doubt that you are right - ok. You can be the winner in a little debate that really means nothing.

[Spudboy]

Thanks for posting this. You and I clearly saw what we saw.

 

Me too. Plus if you listen closely there is a load impact noise consistent with the sound of a ball hitting metal or something solid.

 

I doubt the noise was from the glove impacting the wall.

[Hitch]

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

 

The noise was the ball hitting the wall. But it was when it hit through the webbing of the glove.

 

There may have been a replay that made you think it wasn't a catch. But it was.

[a700hitter]

Me too. Plus if you listen closely there is a load impact noise consistent with the sound of a ball hitting metal or something solid.

 

I doubt the noise was from the glove impacting the wall.

That is also what Pete Abrahams argued. If it had hit the glove first, that noise would have been more muffled.

[Hitch]

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

 

The noise was the ball hitting the wall. But it was when it hit through the webbing of the glove.

 

There may have been a replay that made you think it wasn't a catch. But it was.

 

In fact they just showed another repaly that showed just this very thing.

[a700hitter]

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

 

The noise was the ball hitting the wall. But it was when it hit through the webbing of the glove.

 

There may have been a replay that made you think it wasn't a catch. But it was.

It would still make a noise hitting the webbing of the glove, but Abrahams thought the sound would have been a little more muffled.

[Hitch]

It would still make a noise hitting the webbing of the glove, but Abrahams thought the sound would have been a little more muffled.

 

If you look at the one they just showed on the broadcast you can see the webbing on one side of his glove is very thin, almost gauze like. There's holes everywhere in it. The ball hit the wall, but by striking it through that webbing.

[cp176]

That's a lot of words to say nothing.

 

The noise was the ball hitting the wall. But it was when it hit through the webbing of the glove.

 

There may have been a replay that made you think it wasn't a catch. But it was.

 

Did you see the video posted by greenwell?

[Hitch]

I did. I have also seen several other videos that show it go straight in the glove. I'll take the weight of numbers.

 

Regardless, I don't really care. We won, it didn't matter. I hope the same happens tonight if it means we win.

[cp176]

I did. I have also seen several other videos that show it go straight in the glove. I'll take the weight of numbers.

 

Regardless, I don't really care. We won, it didn't matter. I hope the same happens tonight if it means we win.

 

hmm - kind of what I thought you would say. You are right about one thing - it doesn't matter.