Some of your fellow Yankess fans cried to the moderators because they could not handle my commentary in Yankess threads five years ago. Because of the bunched up panties we cannot have the sort of junk that you offered here anymore in the baseball forum. The Bunched Up Panty Rule is in effect until the moderators indicate otherwise.
But he should have, it was not a difficult call if he was in position. It was a clear call. Again, the Knoblauch play was completely different. We will see it numerous times for each team every season where a player isn't tagged and they call him out. You can pretend that it's not tainted and to you maybe it's not, congrats on that but every time I see the highlights I'll think of beltran's hit. Was the ump a pro? a pro should be able to see that in any speed. That one image doesn't tell the whole story, he didn't tag him but the play was a little closer than that shot and again that play is irrelevant to this CLEAR hit. It's amazing how you are comparing The Weber play to these various baseball plays, it was a travel, Carolina should have had the ball. the ref blew the call AGAINST Carolina. The ump should have been able to see it, he blew a clear call. We all know Beltran hit a ball in fair territory, that's a hit. I didn't see the play but you are going to compare a bang bang play at 1st to chalk flying up? I love it. You know what all these psots tell me? you guys KNOW it's tainted or it wouldn't upset you so much.
The Mets had a top 5 payroll from 1998 to 2008. All you got out of that was a 5 game spanking in in the WS in 2000 and Beltran caught looking. The payroll argument is moronic. As is the rest of your post.
Congrats on generalizing a whole fanbase by one internet poster. So wait the salary cap would only hurt the Yankees? The Mets, Red Sox, Phillies, Angels, Cubs all spend tons of money too and they have 0 world series wins in the last two years. Money doesn't lead to wins. Smartly using the money leads to wins and WS. When the Yankees were in the drought from 01 to 08 everyone yelled "see money can't by WS titles" but then in 09 all these same fans yelled "you only won because of money"
Junc, you've got nothing. Your entire argument is based on what the 3rd base ump SHOULD have seen. He didn't see it, case closed. What upsets us is your baseless argument and refusal to admit your wrong. It doesn't matter what he SHOULD have seen. He didn't. Nothing else matters because he didn't see the chalk. So what he SHOULD have, he didn't. He's not cheating for the Mets, he didn't see it. That taints nothing. Do you even know what the definition of tainted is? What world do you live in where what SHOULD have happened constitutes a basis of reality? The Jets SHOULD have known Kyle Brady sucked so really we drafted Warren Sapp The Saints SHOULD have known better then to have a bounty system so it didn't really happen. Every other franchise in the league SHOULD have known Tom Brady was the best QB of this generation therefore the Patriots didn't really draft him in the 6th round. All these are absolutely ridiculous just like your saying "It's tainted" because the ump SHOULD have seen it. Wait wait... I'll save you the trouble and answer for you I'm not wrong, he should have seen the chalk so it's tainted. All those examples are not the same thing. They are not real, this is completely different because he should have seen the chalk. I really wanted the Mets to get this but whenever I think back to this I'll think it's tainted.
It's based on an obvious hit in a "no hitter". You guys really shouldn't get upset, why do you care if I think it's tainted? Enjoy the NH and everything that came w/ it. It was black and white, the ump should be able to see chalk- that's what he is looking for. That was as bad of a call as there has ever been in MLB. You can deflect w/ Vinny Sea, UNC-Mich or whatever you want to compare it to but this was a black and white call that meant the difference btw a great pitching performance and one that was historic. I wish the ball was actually foul so there were not any questions but I deal in reality.
I had a family friend who was schizophrenic. He thought the Russian mob was out to get him. Found him in a friend's apartment with a loaded pistol. He always used to tell us that he was dealing with the facts and would tell us he felt bad for us because we couldn't deal with the truth of how things really are. I think junc deals with a similar sort of "reality." For the record, junc, I don't care what you think at all. You can think the sky is pink. No skin off my back. I'd imagine the reason you generate so many eye rolls, though, is that you sit there and try to pass off a clearly subjective matter as universal truth. You'll notice, for instance, that no one here is arguing that the ball was foul. No one here is saying that Santana SHOULD have pitched a no hitter had the ump made the right call. Everyone else is just saying that this shit happens all the time. So when you fabricate these elaborate non-arguments, it comes off as somewhere between petty and delusional.
what did I fabricate? The ball was clearly fair as you mentioned, it wasn't balls and strikes or a bang bang play at first, it was an obvious call. One of the worst blown calls in the history of the game. I wish it didn't happen that way but it did. If this happened to my team I'd say the same thing but I'd still enjoy the moment and wouldn't care about what others said.
1. The idea that the no-hitter is definitely "tainted" and that everyone else is absolutely wrong for not agreeing with you. This is a clearly subjective opinion -- and you are welcome to yours -- but it's delusional to expect other people to agree with your subjective opinions. I could give you a whole list of "facts" (because I deal with reality, durrrr) showing why blue is a better color than green. That'd be pretty ridiculous of me, though. 2. The idea that this is one of the worst calls ever in the history of the game. It's not. It's just not. 3. The idea that people are somehow saying the ump should not have been able to make the right call. No one has said that. That's a total straw man on your part. But umps miss calls all the time. Yes, foul/fair calls... even ones that are easier to make: Here's Dale Scott calling a fair ball foul when it's right in front of him, resulting in a triple play: Or remember this one from a playoff game?
I'd actually have more respect for him if he just came out and said, "Yeah, I was just trying to rile up some Mets fans and troll a bit."
awful call against mauer and the Twins but the ump didn't have the luxury of seeing chalk fly up. If he did I'd rate it up there w/ the awful non call in the Johan game. Just pointing out there was controversy, he allowed a hit.
Why did he not see chalk fly up? Because the ball was so fair that it wasn't even close to being foul. That's a much worse call in a much more important game. You continue to argue that he should have seen the ball kick up chalk. Why is it so hard to accept that he didn't? Don't you think if he saw chalk he would have ruled it a fair ball. I'm not arguing that it was the right call, it doesn't matter what the right call was because he ruled it foul and Beltran proceeded to not get a hit in the at bat. He didn't allow a hit, just like Gallarga didn't pitch a perfect game. Human error is part of baseball, always have been, always will be. It doesn't matter what he should have called because he didn't.
It was a terrible call w/o a doubt but the game wasn't historical like the NH was. he missed the chalk but he shouldn't have. He did allow a hit and galarraga did throw a perfect game. It won't reflect in the history books but those that saw those games know better.
Was more historical? It was a playoff game, that doesn't have historical value? The ump didn't know that Santana was gonna throw a no hitter therefore at the time it held no historical value but the ump who blew the call in Mauer play knew it was a playoff game. It's not a matter of what he should or shouldn't have, it's what he did. He ruled it foul therefore it's a foul ball. It's easy to see in slow motion replay it's a fair ball but slow motion replay isn't part of the game in that situation so all that matters is Beltran did not get a hit.
1 game in an LDS is not historical and the yanks could have won the game even if the proper call was made, Johan could not have thrown a NH if the proper call was made.
who decides what is and isn't a hit? the umpires, not you, unfortunately or there would never be mistakes made in baseball case fucking closed. good lord guy, come on
Anybody remember this? Shit I guess England actually won that game and in my hypothetical universe they went on to win the World Cup that year too! Yay!
