THE DEFENDANTS

Jerry Sandusky was a long-time assistant of Joe Paterno’s at Penn State. He was, for many years, considered the heir apparent to Paterno if Paterno ever stepped down as head coach. But, in 1999, Sandusky, after being told by Joe Paterno that he would never become the head coach at Penn State, retired from his coaching position at Penn State, ostensibly to spend more time working for a charity that he had founded called the Second Mile, which helped young, disadvantaged boys.

Tim Curley was the athletic director at Penn State who has now asked to take an administrative leave after being accused of, among other things, perjury in his testimony before the grand jury and failure to report the allegations against Sandusky to the proper authorities.

Gary Schultz, the senior vice-president for finance and business at Penn State, as well as the person in charge of the Penn State police, has retired and is charged with the same thing as Tim Curley.

All three defendants, through their respective attorneys, have maintained their innocence.

THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE TIME LINE

While, obviously, all of the allegations are important and should be taken seriously, the main ones are as follows: In 1998, there was a Penn State police investigation of allegations against Sandusky of inappropriate behavior with a young boy in a shower at the Penn State football facility while he was an assistant coach at Penn State. At that time, Sandusky apparently admitted some inappropriate behavior and nothing further happened to him.

In 1999, Sandusky was told by Joe Paterno that he would never be the head coach at Penn State. Later that year, Sandusky retired, ostensibly to spend more time at the Second Mile. Even though retired, Sandusky still had full access to the Penn State football program, including an office in the Lasch Football Building (which opened in 1999). One victim (“Victim 4”) has alleged that most of the sexual conduct he had with Sandusky was in a sauna in the, at the time, new Lasch Building, because the sauna was in a more secluded area of the building.

In 2002, a graduate assistant (identified in published reports as present-day wide receivers coach and recruitment coordinator Mike McQueary, who also played at Penn State) saw Sandusky allegedly pin a young boy (estimated to be 10) up against the wall in a shower in the Lasch Building and sexually assault him from behind. The graduate assistant told his father and, the next day, they told Coach Paterno. The next day, Coach Paterno, according to his grand jury testimony, told the athletic director (defendant Curley) that “the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

After this incident, the administrators decided to ban Sandusky from bringing young boys on to the Penn State campus.

Yet, in breaking news today, Sandusky, apparently on at least one occasion in 2007, did bring a young boy to Penn State (more on this later).

Nothing happened with all of this until a mother of a young boy, in 2009, accused Sandusky of molesting her son. This led to the investigation which brings us to today.

WHERE IS JOE PATERNO IN ALL OF THIS?

Well, at a press conference at 1:00 this afternoon (Monday, November 7, 2011), Linda Kelly, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, reiterated that there are no charges against Joe Paterno and that he is not regarded as a target.

But the question remains: should he have done more? When asked about whether Paterno had a moral obligation to do more, Kelly side-stepped the question, only saying that she was concerned with the legal aspects of the case, not the moral ones.

The real question of course is: What did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it? Did he know about the incident of sexual misconduct in 1998 which was investigated by the Penn State police? In a well-crafted statement, Paterno said, “If true, the nature and amount of charges are very shocking to me and all Penn Staters.”

The nature and amount? Well, it’s going to be hard to believe that Joe Paterno never knew about the 1998 inappropriate activity by Sandusky. After all, does anybody think that, if a Penn State football player did this and the on-campus police investigated it, Joe Paterno would not have been informed?

Hard to believe.

While we haven’t yet heard from Mike McQueary (and what is he going to say – he’ still on Paterno’s staff), it’s clear that, in 2002, he was very upset, went to Paterno’s house on a Saturday (after witnessing anal sex by Sandusky and a 10-year-old in a Penn State football shower room on a Friday night) and told the coach, at a minimum, that (according to Paterno’s testimony) he saw Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

That should have been enough for Joe Paterno, one of the most powerful men in the state, to do more.

But, under Pennsylvania law, he had no legal obligation to do so.

A POSSIBLE NEW PROBLEM ARISES TODAY FOR PATERNO AND McQUEARY

The only time the Attorney General seemed a little uncomfortable was when an intelligent reporter raised the question of whether Paterno and McQueary might have more of an obligation when Sandusky showed up at a Penn State football practice in 2007 (five years after the alleged “ban”) with a young boy. He asked the Attorney General whether Paterno and McQueary would have “more culpability.”

Attorney General Kelly sated that this issue would have to be “addressed down the line.”

Uh-oh.

WHAT ABOUT POTENTIAL CIVIL LAWSUITS?

Well, six of the eight victims have been identified by the Pennsylvania investigators. Interestingly, the (about) 10-year-old boy in the shower with Sandusky in 2002 has not been found and the Attorney General gave out two phone numbers asking for that boy to come forward at this time.

You would have to think that, on these fact patterns (and the 23-page grand jury report, with discussion about eight victims, is a very difficult read), there might be lawsuits coming down the pike with possible defendants (depending on a lawyer’s investigation) ranging from a large entity like Penn State and/or Second Mile to Sandusky to other Penn State administrators and/or even coaches. A good plaintiff’s lawyer would try to cast a large net, again depending on what his investigation turns up.

BACK TO JOE PATERNO

Joe Paterno will try and stay above the fray. He is a legend at Happy Valley and incredibly well-respected throughout the country as a guy who does everything “the right way.” He became the all-time winningest coach in the history of Divison I football and, this year, despite the view of some that “the game has passed him by,” his team is 8-1 and ranked number 12 in the country.

But if Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 incident (and, again, had it been a player, he definitely would have known) and knew even the details he admitted he knew about the 2002 incident, coupled with the new knowledge that Sandusky showed up with a young boy at a Penn State practice in 2007 (presumably Joe Paterno was there), well, that will be too much for Joe Paterno to keep his job.

I was always a guy who thought that Joe Paterno should be allowed to go out on his own terms. But, as you know, there has been a movement by some in Happy Valley to get Paterno out as long ago as 2002. Meanwhile, leaders of child abuse prevention agencies are calling for Paterno to be fired, if not arrested.

Again, according to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Joe Paterno has done nothing legally wrong. But the whole story leaves a bad taste in just about everybody’s mouth. More facts will come out in the coming days, weeks and months.

But, at a minimum, it says here that the anti-Paterno football people will have enough ammunition to send Joe Paterno into early (for him) retirement.

Joe Paterno’s contract, according to published reports, expires after this football season.

© Copyright 2011 by Steve Kallas.  All rights reserved.

This past Wednesday, in federal district court in Manhattan before Judge Paul Gardephe, the NBA owners tried a pre-emptive strike against the players, asking a federal judge to rule that, if the players decertified the union and sued the NBA for antitrust violations (sound familiar, NFL fans?), such a lawsuit would not be allowed to end the lockout.

While seeking a “declaratory judgment” from the court, the NBA apparently failed to sway the judge to rule in their favor BEFORE such a decertification and lawsuit took place.  While the judge did not rule this past Wednesday, he, at a minimum, cast serious doubt on the notion that such potential actions by the players would be stopped in advance by a court decision.

MEANWHILE, AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME …

Unbeknownst to many (although players’ union leader Billy Hunter says he was aware of at least one of the phone calls), about 50 NBA players, including superstars Dwyane Wade and Dwight Howard, participated in a conference call with an antitrust attorney to get the lay of the land of the decertification process and the possibility of a potential antitrust lawsuit against the NBA.

This raises some fascinating questions like: Why hasn’t this already happened? What are the chances of victory in court, especially after the Wednesday hearing where the NBA owners clearly didn’t hear what they were hoping to hear from Judge Gardephe? How, if at all, can this help the players settle the dispute?

LET’S TAKE A LOOK (AGAIN) AT THE NFL DISPUTE

The actual legal issues were discussed in this column at length back during the NFL lockout (see Kallas Remarks, 7/11/11, for a detailed discussion).  Back then, the NFL did decertify their union, they did sue for antitrust violations (remember Brady v. NFL?) and, at least in the lower federal court in Minnesota, they won an end to the lockout.

But a rapid-moving NFL (through it attorneys) quickly got not one, but two, stays of the decision and eventually won an appeal in the conservative 8^th Circuit (strained as it may have been, see Kallas Remarks above) which allowed the lockout to continue in the NFL.

According to the dissenting opinion in the 8^th Circuit, the majority decision became the first one to give employers (i.e., the NFL owners) the protection of long-established antitrust laws which were made for the protection of the employees (i.e., the players).

Nevertheless, the 8^th Circuit decision stands as the law of the 8^th Circuit (as no appeal was ever perfected) and, eventually, the millionaires and billionaires worked out an agreement to split that nine Billion dollar pie (which, of course, will only get bigger).

WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, DOES THAT DECISION HAVE HERE?

Well, New York City, where the NBA filed its pending case, is in the Second Circuit and, according again to the case in the 8^th Circuit, three other Circuit Courts of Appeal (the First, Seventh and Ninth Circuits) have already held that the applicable provisions of the Clayton Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act apply to employees, and not employers, in these situations (to be clear, the hierarchy in federal court is federal district court, circuit court of appeals and Supreme Court of the United States).

Clearly Judge Gardephe (a federal district court judge) wasn’t swayed, at this time, by the 8^th Circuit decision.  Nor is it incumbent upon him (or any non-8^th Circuit federal district judge) to follow that case.  And, frankly, the whole notion of, in effect, deciding this case in advance, is not going to fly with Judge Gardephe (or, in this writer’s opinion, with virtually any non-8^th Circuit federal district judge).

So, the effect of the NFL case on this case at this time, in this writer’s opinion, is probably nothing. 

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

Well, the NBA owners had hoped to be in a much stronger position.  If they were able to get Judge Gardephe to rule in their favor, the NBA players would have lost a lot of leverage.  But now, with new talks (not surprisingly) scheduled for this weekend, there is a chance for a settlement.

But if you have hard-line players (if there are enough of them who believe the union should actually decertify) who don’t want to “give up” any more to the owners on the one hand, and hard-line owners who believe they will simply lose too much money (again) by actually playing NBA games, well that’s a recipe for disaster.

WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED ABOVE?

Billy Hunter has said all along that the decertification process was something that he would consider as an option but clearly was not a road he wanted to go down (at least, in the past).  The NBA players could, in theory, try to bring a case in a Circuit where there have already been favorable rulings on these issues on behalf of employees (Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are three cities that fit in Circuits (the First, Seventh and Ninth, respectively, where such a suit could be brought).  But the NBA might try and keep that suit in New York or have it transferred to New York if it’s filed somewhere else.

 It says here that even the threat now of bringing such a case (with a belief that it will not be dismissed in the first instance, given the Wednesday hearing in New York) could help the parties reach an agreement this weekend. 

But if both sides stick their heels in, there could very well be no NBA season in 2011-12.

One final, interesting note: with a “split” in the Circuits (one has ruled that the relevant sections of these antitrust laws can apply to employers, three have ruled that they cannot), a future NBA players case v. the NBA owners could eventually wind up in the United States Supreme Court.

But the owners and the players don’t want to go down that road.

Do they?

Here’s hoping that cooler heads prevail (on both sides) and the billionaires and millionaires can work out a deal this weekend to split their four Billion dollar pie (which, of course, if there is a long lockout, might very well go down, not up, at least for the next couple of years).

© Copyright 2011 by Steve Kallas.  All rights reserved.

But Hamilton’s heroism was all dashed by yesterday’s star of stars: David Freese, with both a two-out, two-strike, bottom of the ninth, two-run, game-tying triple and a game-ending,  game-winning home run leading off the bottom of the eleventh inning to force Game 7.

WHAT ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT, BUT ALREADY FORGOTTEN, PLAY IN THE BOTTOM OF THE EIGHTH?

Yeah, you won’t hear much, if anything, about this play.  But it had a huge effect on the game.

Two out, bottom of the eighth, 7-5 Rangers, Yadier Molina on first, two out (this is all after Craig hit his home run to make it 7-5).  Righty Gerald Laird is announced as the pinch-hitter against lefty Derek Holland.  Ron Washington decides to bring in righty Mike Adams.  Tony La Russa counters with lefty Daniel Descalso.

On the first pitch, Descalso hits a ground ball to short.  Elvis Andrus fields it cleanly, then looks to second for the easy force.  Ian Kinsler, playing Descalso to pull, has to rush to second, but he’s going to get there well in time.  Inexplicably, Andrus decides to throw to first, but takes his time on the throw and it goes in the dirt.  It’s scooped out cleanly but Descalso, a fast runner, beats the throw for an infield hit. 

John Jay follows with a single to left but Mike Adams gets Rafael Furcal to ground out 1-3 to close out the inning.  No additional run, no problem, right?

Dead wrong.

WHAT’S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DESCALSO HIT (OR THE ANDRUS MENTAL MISTAKE)?

Well, that’s escaped many experts.  But here’s how it greatly affected the game:  If Descalso is thrown out (or, more likely, if Andrus just throws to second to get the force), the inning is over.  Because no out is recorded on the play, not one, but two more batters come to the plate.

What does this mean in the course of this epic game?

If the out is recorded, here’s who closer Neftali Feliz faces in the bottom of the ninth: John Jay, Rafael Furcal and Ryan Theriot.  The nine, one and two hitters in the order (Theriot didn’t start the game).  None of them is really a threat at the plate.  Pujols would have batted fourth in the inning (but only if someone had reached base).

What actually happened?  Well, because of that play, Feliz has to face the heart of the Cardinals order, two, three and four: Ryan Theriot (not a threat), Albert Pujols (a huge threat) and Lance Berkman (a huge threat).  Allen Craig (a threat) was fourth up in that inning and David Freese (a threat) was up fifth (rather than seventh, which is where he would have been in the order had Andrus made the easy play for the force).

That, of course, is a POTENTIAL gigantic difference BEFORE the bottom of the ninth started.  And, of course, it became a REAL gigantic difference when the inning was actually played and Pujols doubled, Berkman walked and, after Craig struck out, Freese tripled (yes, a catchable but tough ball).

As another result of the two extra batters, the line-up simply turned over better for the Cardinals in the 10^th and 11^th innings, where the Cardinals continued to have to score to stay in the game (two in the 10^th) and then had to score to win the game (one in the 11^th).

With all of the heroics, it was pretty clear that this significant play would be overlooked.  And while you don’t know what Feliz would have done in the bottom of the ninth against nine, one and two, as opposed to two, three and four, you don’t have to be a brain surgeon (or a baseball “expert”) to understand the significance of Andrus’ decision not to go the easy way for a force at second in the bottom of the eighth.

Just another reason why baseball is the greatest game.  Yet, few understood how this non-play helped set up the major plays later in the game. 

HAS RON WASHINGTON ALREADY LOST THE WORLD SERIES FOR THE RANGERS?

Quite possibly.  When asked about starting Derek Holland in Game 7 of the World Series since, because of the rainout, he could now pitch on full rest, Ron Washington had a strange answer.  Essentially, he said that Matt Harrison was going to start because “that’s how I’ve done it all year” and “I’m not going to change now.”

Well, that, almost inexplicable quote, might come back to kill the Rangers.

As you know, Holland pitched (maybe, but at least the equal of Chris Carpenter’s gem to beat the Phillies, 1-0) the most dominant game in this post-season, dominating the Cardinals while holding them to two hits in eight-and-a-third innings in Game 4 of the World Series.  Now, with the “gift” of rain that will allow the Cardinals to start Carpenter on short rest (and he wasn’t that good against the Phillies on short rest in Game 1 – 3 IP, 5 hits, 4 earned runs, elbow problem?), this also gave Ron Washington the opportunity to start the best pitcher (so far) in this World Series on FULL rest.

Inexplicably, he announced, with strong conviction, that he was going to do it the way that he has done it all year.  Which raises the question:  How many times during the regular season did you have an opportunity to start a guy (who had dominated a team in a huge game) on full rest when that next game against the same team meant EVERYTHING?  Answer:  By definition, it hasn’t come up this year.

After all, Game 7 of the World Series only comes along once a year (if that).  Hard to believe that Washington dashed that possibility by bringing in Holland for two innings yesterday.

But that’s exactly what he did.

Unbelievable.

Does this poor decision kill the Rangers’ chance to win their first World Series title?

No, but it certainly, in this writer’s opinion, hurts those chances.

A lot.

© Copyright 2011 by Steve Kallas.  All rights reserved.

THE PLAYS IN THE 7^TH AND 9^TH INNINGS

In the seventh inning, with the score tied at 2, the great Albert Pujols was at bat with Allen Craig on first.  With the count 0-1 on Pujols, Craig took off for second.  The pitch was well out of the strike zone and Pujols did not swing at it.  Soon-to-be World Series MVP (if Texas wins it all) Mike Napoli easily throws Craig out.  Then, not surprisingly, Texas walks Pujols.  No runs score.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 7^TH INNING?

So, what happened?  Well, we got into this convoluted notion that Albert Pujols, a superstar and a very intelligent baseball player, somehow gave a sign to Craig indicating that he (Pujols) wanted to hit and run with Craig on the next pitch.

Let’s stop right there!  It makes no sense, NO SENSE, for an intelligent player of Pujols’ ability to call for such a play.  Why?  Well, with the count 0-1, there was a better than 50-50 chance that Alexi Ogando, the Texas pitcher, was not going to throw a strike to Pujols in that situation.  In addition, if there was a hit-and-run on in Pujols’ mind, wouldn’t he have HAD TO SWING AT THE PITCH?  Intro to hit-and-run:  the batter has to protect the runner.

Well, Pujols didn’t protect the runner and he was easily thrown out at second (frankly, if Pujols had swung and missed, Craig likely would have been thrown out anyway on a high fastball up and away).

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE 7^TH INNING?

Here’s what I think really happened:  while the national media totally took the Albert-called-a-hit-and-run-from-the batter’s-box angle and ran with it, despite the evidence to the contrary (dumb time to call it, Pujols didn’t even swing at the pitch, Pujols and everybody else all know that he will be walked if Craig does steal second on the play), there’s a much simpler, much better explanation.

According to at least one local report out of St. Louis (The Sports Xchange/ TheCardinalNation.com, reported at scout.com), “Craig said he saw the hit-and-run sign from third-base coach Jose Oquendo.  There was a report that Pujols suggested that he had put on the hit-and-run sign.  La Russa called it a “mixup.”

Albert Pujols and Tony La Russa seemed to go out of their way to cover for Craig’s mistake.  Craig, a second-year major league baseball player with all of 119 games in the majors prior to this post-season, probably made a “rookie” mistake.  In his first post-season, he probably didn’t understand the situation; that is, it made no sense to hit-and-run in that situation.

The only alternative is to believe that Albert Pujols would be dumb enough to call the hit-and-run on a 0-1 pitch, knowing that if Craig stole second, he [Pujols] would be walked intentionally.  To top it all off, you would also have to believe that the brilliant Pujols, after calling the hit-and-run himself, didn’t swing at the pitch to protect his runner.

Obviously, it is much more likely that an inexperienced player misinterpreted a sign from the third-base coach (where, of course, the overwhelming majority of hit-and-run signs come from), ran unprotected and was easily thrown out.

If that is what happened (and this writer certainly believes that that is exactly what happened), both Albert Pujols and Tony La Russa are even more liked and respected in their clubhouse (if that’s possible) for covering for a young player’s mistake.  

WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE 9^TH INNING?

Well, that’s much easier.  You know the situation:  Allen Craig on first (again), Albert Pujols up, this time with a 3-2 count.  On three consecutive pitches, Craig takes off for second.

You can understand why:  Albert Pujols is an excellent contact hitter.  In 651 plate appearances this regular season, he only struck out 58 times, excellent numbers for a modern day power hitter.  In this World Series, Pujols had not struck out in his first 22 plate appearances.

Unfortunately for the Cardinals, after two 3-2 foul balls, Pujols swung and missed at a ball well off the plate, Napoli threw Craig out (again) and the Rangers went on to win the game and go up 3-2 in the Series.

Sound baseball strategy that backfired on the rare swing and miss (and even rarer swing and miss at a ball) by Albert Pujols.

WHAT ABOUT “PHONEGATE?”

A little more unclear, but it’s hard to believe that a Hall of Fame manager had no idea that his star closer in a close World Series game wasn’t warming up not once, but twice.  The later mix-up, with Lance Lynn coming in instead of closer Jason Motte, was irrelevant to the outcome of the game.  So we will just focus on the first.

Bottom 8, tie game, Tony La Russa brings in his good lefty reliever, Marc Rzepczynski, to pitch to lefty David Murphy, with first and second, one out.  You could see that nobody else was warming up in the bullpen when Rzepczynski got the call, despite the fact that, later, La Russa said he had told the bullpen to start warming up Motte.

But when Rzepczynski came in the game, analyst Tim McCarver told the national audience that La Russa had told him the night before that he [McCarver] shouldn’t be surprised if “I [La Russa] bring in Rzepczynski to pitch to righties.”

This quote is what the conspiracy theorists point to when they believe that La Russa simply left Rzepczynski in to pitch to lefty (Murphy), righty (Mike Napoli, who gets the game-winning hit off of the lefty reliever) and then lefty (Mitch Moorland) (and full credit to Ron Washington for changing his lineup to lefty-righty-lefty rather than back-to-back lefty hitters).    

It sure seemed like that’s what La Russa wanted to do in that situation.  Nobody else was warming up.  Nobody (player, manager, coach) came out to the mound to either talk to Rzepczynski about pitching to the righty or to give any reliever (Lynn, Motte) time to warm up.

While many apparently saw and/or heard La Russa say to Lynn (who came in after the damage was done) “What are you doing here?” the game was, essentially, over by then.

In La Russa’s defense, there are reports that you can’t see the visitor’s bullpen from the visitor’s dugout in Texas.  Former superstar pitching coach Leo Mazzone, long after the game, said he never ended a bullpen conversation until the guy in the bullpen repeated what Mazzone had said to him.  Excellent manager Buck Showalter said, correctly, that there has to be uniform quality control with bullpen phones throughout baseball.

And, also very interestingly, either before the World Series started or before it switched to Texas, Tony La Russa was asked a technology question by a reporter (couldn’t find his name) relating to the ancient technology of calling a bullpen on a phone in 2011.  Everybody laughed when La Russa said that he “wasn’t prepared for that one” and proceeded to just state that whatever is there is there in terms of technology.

But after this phone fiasco, it makes you wonder: I-Pads all around? Instant Messaging from the pitching coach?  Smoke signals?

It would seem that, based on this debacle, any means would have been better than what was used.

Having said all of that, I believe, based on what Tim McCarver said that La Russa had said the night before, that the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, a future Hall-of famer, was comfortable with his lefty (Marc Rzepczynski) pitching to their righty (Mike Napoli).

Game, and maybe World Series, over.     

© Copyright 2011 by Steve Kallas.  All rights reserved.

This, of course, is huge as the next two batters (Josh Hamilton and Michael Young) hit sacrifice flies and both Kinsler and Andrus score.

Final score: Texas 2, St. Louis 1.  Texas steals home field advantage away from St. Louis as they go to Texas tied at 1 game.

TIM McCARVER SPEAKS; EVERYBODY LISTENS

As soon as the play happened, expert analyst Tim McCarver decided that Albert Pujols should be given an error.  After all, according to McCarver, Pujols touched the throw and, thus, should be given an error.  McCarver later expanded, stating that the fact that Pujols touched the ball hurt the chances of Cardinal catcher Yadier Molina to throw out Andrus at second.

An interesting analysis, unchallenged by Joe Buck (or anyone else, for that matter, as everybody seemed to jump on the Pujols-made-a-big-error bandwagon).

But that analysis, on this play, was dead wrong.

LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE RULE

Interestingly, the official scorer, originally, did not give Pujols an error.  He was correct, but must have bowed to pressure and changed his decision AFTER the game, giving Pujols an error on what turned out to be a play that changed the game and, possibly, the 2011 World Series.

Here’s the rule (Rule 10.12(a)(8)):

 “The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder:

  (8) whose failure to stop, or try to stop, an ACCURATELY thrown ball permits a runner to advance.” (emphasis added).

NOW COMPARE THAT TO THE ACTUAL PLAY AND THROW

Take a look at the replay.  The throw was a bad one.  Albert Pujols, coming over from first base to be the cutoff man lined up with home plate, took one step, then another, and lunged to try and get the ball.  The throw wound up 15-18 feet (maybe even a little more) from home plate up the third base line.

Under no definition of accurate was that an accurate throw.

Therefore, under the definition of an error set forth above, that simply could not be an error AGAINST ALBERT PUJOLS.

And while Tim McCarver said that Pujols tipped the ball, that wasn’t clear to this writer even on a slow motion replay.  But let’s assume he did slightly tip it: if he tipped it a little, it was 15-18 feet up the third base line.  If he hadn’t tipped it (again, assuming that he did on the actual play), it would have been 12-15 feet up the third base line.

Either way, a bad, inaccurate throw by John Jay.

Had Jay made a perfect throw, the ball would have been right on Pujols’s chest, an easy catch.  If he had made a good throw, Pujols would have taken one step to his left and caught the ball easily.  But once you go to two steps AND a lunge, well, there’s no chance that this was an “accurate” throw.

And, thus, no chance that this was an error on Albert Pujols.

WAS THIS AN ERROR ON JOHN JAY?

Well, a far more interesting question, since this clearly was not an error on Pujols.  Once again, let’s look at the rule:  Rule 10.12(a)(6):  “The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder: (6) whose wild throw in attempting to prevent a runner’s advance [Kinsler] permits that runner or any other runner [Andrus] to advance one or more bases beyond the base such runner would have reached had the throw not been wild.”

The only question now becomes:  Is there anything between an “accurate” throw and a “wild” throw?  But that is beyond the scope of this column (if there is nothing between accurate and wild, this was an error on the outfielder, not the lunging first baseman). 

There’s no chance that the throw from John Jay was an “accurate” one.  Again, just watch the replay.  If it’s limited to accurate or wild, then it was wild.  If there is something in between (inaccurate? bad?), then I would vote for an inaccurate throw or a bad throw.

But, whatever it was, it was not an accurate throw.

And, whatever it was, it was NOT an error on Albert Pujols.

CONCLUSION

While everybody (other than the official scorer, and keep in mind that the New York Post actually reported that there were official scorers, plural, who changed the scoring after “numerous reviews”) immediately (and later, see, for example, every expert on SportsCenter) accepted Tim McCarver’s explanation as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the reality is that he made a snap judgment which, frankly, given the rule and the actual throw, was incorrect.

But don’t take my word for it.  Watch the replay, watch the throw, watch Pujols take two steps and lunge, watch where Molina fields the ball and draw your own conclusion.

Sometimes even the experts make mistakes.

But if this error stands (and, hey, presumably it could be changed again) and the Rangers win the World Series, 10, 20 or 50 years from now (or maybe even next week or next month), someone will “break down” the 2011 World Series and come to the conclusion that that big error by Albert Pujols in Game 2, which allowed the winning run to unnecessarily get into scoring position, was the key play in the Cardinals defeat.

And, frankly, that would be dead wrong.

© Copyright 2011 by Steve Kallas.  All rights reserved.