+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: A Paranoid man.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hung on for the ride.
    Posts
    63,408

    A Paranoid man.

    "Safe. He never tagged him. I don't know what they're looking at. I think we lead the league in stands. A paranoid man would worry more about it, an alert man would wonder about it. I do. It's pretty obvious to us. I hope they didn't have the same look we had."

    Buck


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    St. Michaels
    Posts
    3,949
    Seriously? Even the super slow replay was not definitive. It implies he was safe but it was not clear.

    My paranoia questions why Jones was wandering aimlessly of the bag I that situation.

  3. #3
    howboutthoseos's Avatar
    howboutthoseos is offline Plus Member since 8/17/2012 Norfolk Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Coppell, TX
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by weams View Post
    "Safe. He never tagged him. I don't know what they're looking at. I think we lead the league in stands. A paranoid man would worry more about it, an alert man would wonder about it. I do. It's pretty obvious to us. I hope they didn't have the same look we had."

    Buck
    At some point, you have to trust the system. Yes, he looked safe last night. But it wasn't slam dunk -- one could argue it wasn't definitive. If I start letting myself go down the road that there's a conspiracy in the NY review room to screw the Orioles and reward teams like the Red Sox and Yankees, it's going to be hard to enjoy the game.

  4. #4
    OFFNY's Avatar
    OFFNY is offline Plus Member since 3/11 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Brewster, NY
    Posts
    36,957
    o
    I thought that Jones was safe, but I also thought that there was not indisputable evidence that the call was wrong.

    If Jones had been called safe, and Scoscia had challenged it, I would have expected the umpires to do the same thing (stay with their original call on the field.)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,782
    I guess it comes down to - what is definitive? If it means 100% certainty, then it was a correct decision to not change the call. If it means 90% certainty, they should have changed the call. As we've seen in football, the NFL does not use a 100% certainty standard.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    St. Michaels
    Posts
    3,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruzious View Post
    I guess it comes down to - what is definitive? If it means 100% certainty, then it was a correct decision to not change the call. If it means 90% certainty, they should have changed the call. As we've seen in football, the NFL does not use a 100% certainty standard.
    Exactly right.

    I think MLB is looking for 100%. And that's fine with me. In fact I argue if not absolutely clear right away, it's not certain.

    In baseball, bang bang plays have never been about certainty, if the ball arrives first and the defender is in position then they get the call. I don't need that standard changed.

    Replay is about righting the obvious mistakes, such as that safe call at 1st base robbing Ubaldo of a perfect game a fees back in Colorado.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Haymarket, VA
    Posts
    1,949
    Quote Originally Posted by srock View Post
    Exactly right.

    I think MLB is looking for 100%. And that's fine with me. In fact I argue if not absolutely clear right away, it's not certain.

    In baseball, bang bang plays have never been about certainty, if the ball arrives first and the defender is in position then they get the call. I don't need that standard changed.

    Replay is about righting the obvious mistakes, such as that safe call at 1st base robbing Ubaldo of a perfect game a fees back in Colorado.
    But that is not how replay is being used at all in my opinion. From the many challenges I have observed it seems to me that they are looking at the play as if for the first time and hardly taking into account what the original call on the field was. That is my impression anyway.

  8. #8
    Malike's Avatar
    Malike is offline Plus Member Since 5/08 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    14,900
    Quote Originally Posted by srock View Post
    Exactly right.

    I think MLB is looking for 100%. And that's fine with me. In fact I argue if not absolutely clear right away, it's not certain.

    In baseball, bang bang plays have never been about certainty, if the ball arrives first and the defender is in position then they get the call. I don't need that standard changed.

    Replay is about righting the obvious mistakes, such as that safe call at 1st base robbing Ubaldo of a perfect game a fees back in Colorado.
    If they are shooting for 100% certainty, they need more and better camera angles. The system is flawed, and I personally think replay is a waste of time, just another thing to slow the game down.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,111
    So was the issue that the angle that showed how late the tag was obscured the view of AJ's fingers? Because if you have any sense of object permanency, and know from the other angle how long it took him to touch the bag, there really wasn't a question.

    I can see them talking about it in New York. "See Bob... right... there. You can't see his fingers or the top of his hand anymore, so they clearly phased of of existence. How are you supposed to touch a base without fingers, Bob? How?"

  10. #10
    Stotle's Avatar
    Stotle is offline Hangout Scouting Contributor Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,087
    Oh for ****'s sake....

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Weaverville, NC
    Posts
    2,136
    You know why I know he was safe? 'Cause I was looking at Jones and Kirby yuk it up with Pujols while the umps were staring at the replay. Their body language gave it away. All three of 'em made gestures on the forearm.

    Blown call, didn't lose the game that inning. Moving on.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    67
    He was safe, one angle was 100% definitive. The angle the umpire had he looked out. The angle from Kirby and the Orioles dugout he was without a doubt safe. So since we can't see behind the curtain to the inner workings of the wizard we are only left to assume MLB's definition of "definitive".

  13. #13
    Can_of_corn's Avatar
    Can_of_corn is online now Plus Member since 12/09 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    34,257
    Worried Man


  14. #14
    isestrex's Avatar
    isestrex is offline Plus Member Since 08/06 All-Star Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    9,906
    It's getting really frustrating to listen to Joe and Fred call these replays on the radio. I didn't see the play live but I heard it live and both Joe and Fred were 110% certain that he was absolutely safe beyond a shadow of a doubt. After they upheld the call, they said that NY should be ashamed and got the call wrong. When I looked at it this morning I saw that it was very close and inconclusive.

    Joe and Fred (particularly Joe) have been so homer biased on these replay reviews all season. They seem to think every Orioles' challenge is clear as day and every opposing team's challenge is "inconclusive".

  15. #15
    Tx Oriole's Avatar
    Tx Oriole is offline Plus Member Since 04/04 - All-Star Hangouter Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Malike View Post
    If they are shooting for 100% certainty, they need more and better camera angles. The system is flawed, and I personally think replay is a waste of time, just another thing to slow the game down.
    I am of the same mind. Waste of time.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

OriolesHangout.com is an unofficial site and not associated with the Baltimore Orioles and part of Hangout Ventures LLC. Copyright ©2013 | Privacy Policy | Advertise with us