Cards-Padres tonight

[gregmag]

I was at Busch tonight. I have never seen bad umpiring determine an outcome so decisively. Tony Cruz reached and scored the Cards' third run after the home plate ump missed a swinging strikeout. Alexi Amarista didn't score the Padres' fourth run when, a half inning later, that same ump called him out on a missed tag. The Cards "won" 4-3. It's not reasonable to assume Mike Matheny has video of the ump pleasuring livestock; OTOH, no other conceivable explanation is any more reasonable. If the Cards beat the Brewers by a game, this is my nomination for lead atrocity.

[olliegjw]

The only reasonable explanation is the truth.....Bob Davidson was the ump. He is brutal.

[SoupTown]

Some umpires do like to entertain the home crowd and send them home happy.

[Dead Simmons]

No doubt the Cards caught a break twice in as many innings. The first call on what was called a foul tip appeared to have missed the bat and touched the ground before it went into the catchers glove, The home plate ump heard the sound and the 3B ump saw the bounce. The batter did not break for 1st, but casually stood at the plate. A deke? It was a tough call.

 

On the second call the ball beat the runner to the plate but he slid very wide to avoid the tag. It was impossible to tell if Pierzinski's swipe tag got him, but when the runner made a second attempt to touch the plate AJ reacted with a late 2nd tag. The ump was baffled and didn't rule the out until after the runner beat the second tag. It was indeed a strange call.

 

But Matheny was due for a break. I believe that he has the lowest success rate on reviews in the NL. I fully expected to lose both reviews. The Cards dodged two bullets last night.

[Lee16]

The Padre runner there in the 9th inning should have been safe for a couple reasons. First, Pierzinski clearly misses the tag, he knows he did which is why he immediately dives after him at the plate. Davidson watches all of this and makes no call for 3 or 4 seconds but honestly he seems to ask AJ if he tagged him, I kid you not. Then he calls him out. I also don't know why the runner wasn't safe due to Pierzinski blocking the path to the plate. When he catches the ball, he is 10 feet or so up the line, straddling the line. The runner didn't make this wide swing around him on the way to the plate because he wanted to, he did it because he had to.

 

I just don't understand why in the instant replay era obvious screw ups like this are allowed to continue.

[bill hAll Star]

I think the runner was safe, but we have benefited on a couple of calls like that this year, so I'm going to just let it slide. Some of those "inconclusive" ones that seem nearly conclusive but they can't say for sure.

[dlk9s]

I had switched to MLB Network last night to see if they were showing the end of the game, as I knew it was close. When I tuned in, Harold Reynolds (lol Harold Reynolds) was talking about the problems with the blocking the plate rule. At that point, I had no idea what had happened in the game. Then they showed the replay.

 

The very first time I saw the replay I thought it was pretty obvious that the catcher missed the tag. In fact, I didn't understand why Reynolds was even talking about the plate blocking rule, as it didn't even look like that was an issue. When I found out the ump called the runner out, I couldn't believe it.

 

I don't think there was any problem with the catcher blocking the runner's path, but I thought it was pretty apparent that he missed the tag.

[Dead Simmons]

I don't think there was any problem with the catcher blocking the runner's path, but I thought it was pretty apparent that he missed the tag.

Just another case of one umpire backing up another, or "the police policing themselves". MLB has to know that this is impossible. I would like to see the replay ump make a ruling w/o knowing what the on-field call was. THEN we would get some accuracy.

[gregmag]

Some umpires do like to entertain the home crowd and send them home happy.

I remember reading a study years ago that described how umpires' close calls favored the home team. It makes perfect sense: any person, consciously or not, would rather hear cheers than boos from 40,000 people. In theory the replay should help with that.

 

Of course you guys are right that close calls happen all the time. I'm more worked up about this one, I'm sure, because I was there (I don't get to a lot of games). But it still seems striking to me -- the clear importance of both calls, the fact that the same ump made them, how close together in time they occurred. If nothing else, it made for an exciting finish.

[Dragonbait]

I remember Steve czaben talk about officiating home vs away.. football was the fairest, then baseball. Basketball was dead last according to the study he cited.

[stoutdude04]

One of the analysts said it wasnt blocking the plate because the path of the ball took him into the line...which really doesnt make any sense. So if the ball takes you into the line to catch it you can then be in the way and cause the runner to reroute himself? Guy should have tried to run into AJ. That would have been interesting...because the runner was tiny next to AJ.

[dlk9s]

One of the analysts said it wasnt blocking the plate because the path of the ball took him into the line...which really doesnt make any sense. So if the ball takes you into the line to catch it you can then be in the way and cause the runner to reroute himself? Guy should have tried to run into AJ. That would have been interesting...because the runner was tiny next to AJ.

It makes total sense. The catcher should have the right to try to catch the ball. It's not his fault if the ball is up the line. If he has to move into the base line to catch it, so be it.

[stoutdude04]

One of the analysts said it wasnt blocking the plate because the path of the ball took him into the line...which really doesnt make any sense. So if the ball takes you into the line to catch it you can then be in the way and cause the runner to reroute himself? Guy should have tried to run into AJ. That would have been interesting...because the runner was tiny next to AJ.

It makes total sense. The catcher should have the right to try to catch the ball. It's not his fault if the ball is up the line. If he has to move into the base line to catch it, so be it.

 

That's fine, but then he should be able to get run over, and maybe he is and I don't know the new rule well.

[jerichoholicninja]

One of the analysts said it wasnt blocking the plate because the path of the ball took him into the line...which really doesnt make any sense. So if the ball takes you into the line to catch it you can then be in the way and cause the runner to reroute himself? Guy should have tried to run into AJ. That would have been interesting...because the runner was tiny next to AJ.

It makes total sense. The catcher should have the right to try to catch the ball. It's not his fault if the ball is up the line. If he has to move into the base line to catch it, so be it.

 

That's fine, but then he should be able to get run over, and maybe he is and I don't know the new rule well.

 

In this instance, yes, contact can be made.