Harold Baines.....Lee Smith in Hall of Fame

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Nah, I just like any excuse to drege up obscure stuff like the tale of Bill Thomas and the Evangeline League scandal of '46.

It looks like a good read, I am going to check it out here after work.

[Number5]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Is there any evidence that Garcia' s gambling was tied to baseball?  That he was betting on MLB games while an ump?  I thought he just had personal gambiling problems, but I don't really know.

Nobody is saying you can't go to Vegas and play the slots.  You just can't put $5000 on the Reds tonight when you're in the employ of MLB.

Irrelevant.  He didn't merely gamble on slots, as you said, but rather had known association with illegal gamblers and was known to owe them money.  It makes no difference what his wagers were that resulted in the indebtedness.  Surely you can see the danger in having a game official indebted to illegal gamblers.  The possibility of untoward influence is obvious and cannot be tolerated.  Furthermore, his private reprimand from the commissioners office was ridiculous, given that and the very same time, Rose was being publicly flogged and banned for life.  The hypocrisy is intolerable.

[DrungoHazewood]

23 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Irrelevant.  He didn't merely gamble on slots, as you said, but rather had known association with illegal gamblers and was known to owe them money.  It makes no difference what his wagers were that resulted in the indebtedness.  Surely you can see the danger in having a game official indebted to illegal gamblers.  The possibility of untoward influence is obvious and cannot be tolerated.  Furthermore, his private reprimand from the commissioners office was ridiculous, given that and the very same time, Rose was being publicly flogged and banned for life.  The hypocrisy is intolerable.

I don't/didn't know a whole lot about Garcia's activities.  If he was in debt to illegal gamblers there's no justification for his continued employment in baseball.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't/didn't know a whole lot about Garcia's activities.  If he was in debt to illegal gamblers there's no justification for his continued employment in baseball.

Exactly.

Seven years later, there he was at the right field wall, looking up directly at the young man reaching over the wall and catching a ball that was obviously in play.  I was shocked by the non-call, as was everyone who saw it.  How could he possibly have missed that call?  A half-dozen or so years later, the story about his prior reprimand for illegal gambling indebtedness came out and all was made clear to me.

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Exactly.

Seven years later, there he was at the right field wall, looking up directly at the young man reaching over the wall and catching a ball that was obviously in play.  I was shocked by the non-call, as was everyone who saw it.  How could he possibly have missed that call?  A half-dozen or so years later, the story about his prior reprimand for illegal gambling indebtedness came out and all was made clear to me.

Well... there's motive and opportunity.  But you'd need quite a bit more for a conviction.  Most twisted, devious plots turn out to be plain old incompetence.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Well... there's motive and opportunity.  But you'd need quite a bit more for a conviction.  Most twisted, devious plots turn out to be plain old incompetence.

Hey, I understand the guy will never be convicted.  OJ wasn't convicted, either.  (At least of murder.)  Burden of proof.  Doesn't mean we don't know what happened.  It is much, much harder to believe mere incompetence in this case.

[Number5]

 

[Moose Milligan]

I'm still 50/50 on if Tarasco would have caught that ball.  Tarasco was a capable defender, he was camped under it like he knew he had it.  But every time I see that replay from the side, the trajectory of the ball looks like it's going to miss his glove.

Two big middle fingers up to Jeff Maier.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm still 50/50 on if Tarasco would have caught that ball.  Tarasco was a capable defender, he was camped under it like he knew he had it.  But every time I see that replay from the side, the trajectory of the ball looks like it's going to miss his glove.

Two big middle fingers up to Jeff Maier.

Let me say, I was overseas when that play happened and don’t have even 1% of the emotion about it that most fans do who watched it live in the heat of the game.    I don’t have Jeffrey Maier nightmares at night.   

That said, I have no doubt at all that Tarasco would have caught it if Maier hadn’t interfered.    It was a terrible call by Garcia, but I don’t have any suspicions that it was anything other than a mistake on his part.

[TonySoprano]

14 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm still 50/50 on if Tarasco would have caught that ball.  Tarasco was a capable defender, he was camped under it like he knew he had it.  But every time I see that replay from the side, the trajectory of the ball looks like it's going to miss his glove.

Two big middle fingers up to Jeff Maier.

Tarasco wouldn't have caught it, but instead it bounces off the top of the fence.   Figures it was Captain Over-rated that hit it (and it was Armando pitching) to tie game 1 in the bottom of the 8th. Bernie Williams got the walkoff in the 11th off Randall K. Myers.

I heard it all on the radio driving back from my Godmother's funeral in South Carolina.   What nauseated me the most was how the little b-tard became a celebrity on Letterman and also Regis.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

That said, I have no doubt at all that Tarasco would have caught it if Maier hadn’t interfered.    

 

1 hour ago, TonySoprano said:

Tarasco wouldn't have caught it, but instead it bounces off the top of the fence.

OH Cage match, Frobby vs. Soprano!  

[Number5]

By rule, the determining factor on whether an interference play is called an out or the batter/runner gets placed on a base is whether the fielder had an opportunity to catch the ball.  If it is close, he had an opportunity.  The umpire is not expected to leap into an alternate reality and see if it would have been caught or would have just missed his glove.  If there is a chance it would have been caught, call the out.  Tarasco was clearly making a play at the ball.  When the player is clearly in position to have a chance to catch the ball, the only question is whether the ball was over the wall into the fan area or in front of the wall and in play.  No doubt on this play.  Garcia clearly knew that, IMO.  This call would normally be made by the second base umpire and is difficult to see from there.  Fans would be upset if a second base umpire missed such a call, but wouldn't be in utter shock, given the angle and distance involved.  This game happened to have a right field umpire and Garcia went all the way out to the wall and well into fair territory to be in position to make the call.  From there, he would clearly see arms extended over the wall.  His positioning at the wall makes it impossible for me to believe that he didn't see the young man's arms extended well into the field of play.  It simply wasn't a case of having to make a call from a poor position.  He had a perfect sight-line.  To believe that he didn't see the play simply holds no water.  I can't help but believe that he made a game-changing call that he knew was the incorrect call.

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

OH Cage match, Frobby vs. Soprano!  

Just re-watched the video.   I think Tarasco would have caught it.    He barely left his feet.    But, I can’t say 100% for sure.    What I can say is, it sure wasn’t a HR.

[Number5]

17 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Just re-watched the video.   I think Tarasco would have caught it.    He barely left his feet.    But, I can’t say 100% for sure.    What I can say is, it sure wasn’t a HR.

Again, the umpire doesn't need to be 100% sure the player would have caught it.  To call interference and award two bases, the umpire would have to be 100% sure that the fielder would not have caught it.  If a player is in position and making a play at the ball, as in this case, the call is out on interference.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Again, the umpire doesn't need to be 100% sure the player would have caught it.  To call interference and award two bases, the umpire would have to be 100% sure that the fielder would not have caught it.  If a player is in position and making a play at the ball, as in this case, the call is out on interference.

I know.   Just speculating on what would have happened without the interference.