Jackie Robinson Steals Home.............One More Time

[SHOELESSJOE3]

This one comes back every so often, Jackie Robinson's steal of home, World Series 1955.

This is only one pic, what I think I see could be wrong, close but still difficult to make a call..

Might I add, I have see other pics where it appears Jackie may have been safe. Unfortunate that just about all the pics are from the same angle, different frames really don't help much.
I welcome anything new in the way of pics but I believe this is the angle most pics are taken from.

May I make this point, this thread is not about the photos, it's about some players comments. I do realize even comments will not settle the issue.
We have seen the subject come up so many times and the debate is always about interpreting the photos, I want to present a different take this time, players comments.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The man who had the best view, looking down on the play. Dodger Frank Kellert.
But, this was a very close play and even Frank could be wrong.

So here is a former Dodger's take on the play.

On the others side, Yankee SS Phil Rizzuto commented many years later, he saw it as Jackie being safe, more on that later.

[StanTheMan]

Granted, I haven't studied the play, or many photos or videos, but here goes.

It's possible the arrow indicating the tip/toe of Jackie's spike is wrong in the photo above. Take a look at the angle of his outstretched lead leg from the hip to the top of the shoe, especially the small white portion of Robinson's sock which is visible It appears to me that for the toe of the spike to be where the arrow is pointing, he would have to have his ankle at a severe angle relative to his leg and the direction of his slide.

Were he to catch a spike in the dirt with his foot at that severe of an angle, he would suffer a sever injury for sure. He wouldn't slide like that on purpose that's for sure.

I'm assuming there has not been much contact with Berra's glove (if any) at the moment this photo was taken, so I'm ruling out Berra's tag forcing his foot to that extreme angle. Consider.... Is it possible Jackie's foot is extended, more of a toe first slide, with the foot more in in line with his slide/leg?

Could Jackie's toe be where the "glove" arrow is pointing in the photo above? Or hidden. Ynthe glove in this image? If so, he's safe I think.

[brett]

Isn't is pretty clear that Berra received a pitch in a position of interference (it was actually a pitch and not a throw from off the rubber)? If that were the case I think it would be a deadball and the batter goes to first, (or would he have needed to crack berra on the back of the skull for that?)

Anyway, from the pic, what you point to as Jackie's spike looks like the thumb of Berra's mitt to me. What you point to as Yogi's mitt looks like the ball to me.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Granted, I haven't studied the play, or many photos or videos, but here goes.

It's possible the arrow indicating the tip/toe of Jackie's spike is wrong in the photo above. Take a look at the angle of his outstretched lead leg from the hip to the top of the shoe, especially the small white portion of Robinson's sock which is visible It appears to me that for the toe of the spike to be where the arrow is pointing, he would have to have his ankle at a severe angle relative to his leg and the direction of his slide.

Were he to catch a spike in the dirt with his foot at that severe of an angle, he would suffer a sever injury for sure. He wouldn't slide like that on purpose that's for sure.

I'm assuming there has not been much contact with Berra's glove (if any) at the moment this photo was taken, so I'm ruling out Berra's tag forcing his foot to that extreme angle. Consider.... Is it possible Jackie's foot is extended, more of a toe first slide, with the foot more in in line with his slide/leg?

Could Jackie's toe be where the "glove" arrow is pointing in the photo above? Or hidden. Ynthe glove in this image? If so, he's safe I think.

Very possible Stan, I did consider the extreme angle the foot would have to be in.

That is why I also said the other arrow point "appears" to be Yogi's mitt.
Not going to dwell much on the contact because even if that is Jackie's toe touching the plate, no way to know when Yogi first made contact with Jackie.

Recall my opener, how a play can appear one way from one angle and different from another angle with a quality photo, which we do no have. We've all seen them in todays game, because of all the different angles, you could swear to a play one way, then another angle looks different.

Now Brett sees something different, maybe it's not Yogi's mitt, he sees it as possibly the ball.
Anyway, remember my opener, of course I welcome all the input on the photos but I'm dealing more with players comments on this thread, not that that would settle the issue.
We heard from Frank Kellert who was at bat and had the best view of the play, he thought Jackie was out. And I did say, he could be wrong.
Here come Yogi's teammate, Phil Rizzuto.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

This comment from Phil Rizzuto was in Jackie's corner for years and accepted.
I dug a bit deeper and found Phil was not even on the field when the play took place.

[brett]

Very possible Stan, I did consider the extreme angle the foot would have to be in.

That is why I also said the other arrow point "appears" to be Yogi's mitt.
Not going to dwell much on the contact because even if that is Jackie's toe touching the plate, no way to know when Yogi first made contact with Jackie.

Recall my opener, how a play can appear one way from one angle and different from another angle with a quality photo, which we do no have. We've all seen them in todays game, because of all the different angles, you could swear to a play one way, then another angle looks different.

Now Brett sees something different, maybe it's not Yogi's mitt, he sees it as possibly the ball.
Anyway, remember my opener, of course I welcome all the input on the photos but I'm dealing more with players comments on this thread, not that that would settle the issue.
We heard from Frank Kellert who was at bat and had the best view of the play, he thought Jackie was out. And I did say, he could be wrong.
Here come Yogi's teammate, Phil Rizzuto.

It looks like the toe know, HOWEVER what you call the glove now looks like the cap of the right leg guard which only looks to be contiguous with the foot (and if so would be completely blocking the view of the glove). Anyone have a picture of Berra in gear? And the Rizzuto issue is interesting, but why would we think that contemporaries would see it better at full speed than what we are able to put together?

And would anyone like to clarify the interference issue? If Berra received the pitch illegally, then what would have been the appropriate call? Would the call matter if the tag had been first or after Jackie touched home?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It looks like the toe know, HOWEVER what you call the glove now looks like the cap of the right leg guard which only looks to be contiguous with the foot (and if so would be completely blocking the view of the glove). Anyone have a picture of Berra in gear? And the Rizzuto issue is interesting, but why would we think that contemporaries would see it better at full speed than what we are able to put together?

And would anyone like to clarify the interference issue? If Berra received the pitch illegally, then what would have been the appropriate call? Would the call matter if the tag had been first or after Jackie touched home?

Here are a couple of pics of Yogi just after the play.

On Rizzuto, I thought the same, how good could he have seen the play even if at his position. I just had to make it clear, he was not at SS during the play.

The interference, I think, could have been called because some said Yogi stepped in front of the plate before he had the ball. That would have blocked the batter Kellert from swinging, bunting if he chose to..

One thing has to be clear here. Again not faulting the ump but I see it as no way could he have made the call on what he saw. He could not possibly see the play, the ball, the plate, the mitt, Jackie's foot. He had to make some kind of call, he may have guessed correctly.
He certainly did not make the call on what he saw, he couldn't see the play.

This steal and the call would have really been of great concern and importance had the Yanks lost that game, as the Dodgers did win the WS.

[Nimrod]

There are several clips on YouTube of this steal, but I am just too ignorant to know how to post it here.

[leewileyfan]

I never fully appreciated how truly close and debatable this play was. Given the photo, I finally took some time to study every detail I tought made sense, especially nuances of body language:

1. The natural tendency of a skilled baserunner is to extend, as much as possible, whatever part of his body has the best chance of getting to the target base first, in this case the foot of the extended leg.

2. The dark "thing" that seems to be on the inside edge of the front of the plate [inside to batter Kellert] appears to be the extended foot of Robinson, having made contact with the plate.

3. If I read Berra's body language correctly, his right foot and toes suggest they are pivoting from outside to inside to bring the play in touch with Robinson.

4. His clenched ungloved hand seems firmly jammed against the glove, which may [or may not] be in contact with Robinson.

5. This is a pure stretch-guess; but with Kellert having stepped back from his batting position, does that give the umpire a clear view to the inside corner where the action is? I couldn't rule that out.

6. Berra appears to be at least 18 inches advanced to the plate out of his "receiving" position which may or may not be interference. I have to ask this because I don't have the answer: If a batter in such a play cedes the batter's box for his oncoming runner, does that allow the catcher to pounce ahead and "block" the plate?

I call Robinson: SAFE.

[StanTheMan]

Posting a YouTube vid isn't difficult, but I'm on my phone here. Next time I'm online on my PC, I'll post the video. I was intrigued by the mention of the umpire's sight line and the notion of Berra interfering.

Some images. I've seen clearer photos, but these were taken from the video itself. Excuse any blurriness, they'll get the job done I think.

1. The umpire does move UP, and slightly left. His left foot is on the white line of the catchers box. He started the pitch more centrally located. The final images of the argument give you a good indication of his sight line when the left foot is directly on the chalk line. How much Berra blocked is debatable, but I think he had a decent view.

2. Berra interferes in a BIG way. Standing virtually on the plate long before the ball reaches it. The batter had just finished his stride/toe touch and Berra was already in the way.

3. Images both before the pitch and during the subsequent argument shows exactly where the umpire was compared to Berra re: blocking his view. The umpire cannot move very much... He needs to think ball/strike first, then safe/out. In hindsight he might have been in terrific position. Not sure where else he could have gone to make both calls?

4. How many strikes were there? Even a halfhearted bunt attempt would have earned the interference call easily in my mind.

5. Jackie slides with his toe extended.

6. From the moment Berra receives the pitch (mitt about knee high) he does not have too far to go to get the tag on and Jackie is still pretty far away.

7. Pitching from the stretch with a runner faster than a jackrabbit on a date is a bad idea.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There are several clips on YouTube of this steal, but I am just too ignorant to know how to post it here.

I have seen all the videos there are, none any more clear than the still photos.
I will say the videos can make the case for the interference call but do nothing to improve on the safe or out, tag, in time or not in time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am in agreement with the interference on the play but since it was not called the only debate is whether the tag was made before Jackie made contact with the plate.

That has been the only debate over the years, tag or no tag and at what point.

I have yet to see a photo that shows the play so clear that it can't be debated.
And again, too bad there are no quality pictures from another angle.

Put it this way. If we had replays back then and umps had the authority to reverse a call, I would doubt the call would be reversed whether it was a safe or out call.
Simply because in most cases today it has to be a more convincing replay to overturn a call and this one is too close to change. This is assuming there would only be the one angle the umps could view.

[Los Bravos]

I'm going to wade into this again. Maybe this time I can avoid a several day suspension.

There is extant footage shot from stands behind third base, looking down toward home from third, that shows him looking much more clearly safe than he does in the angle that was shot from behind first. I'm NOT talking about that recreation thing that MLB Network did a couple of years ago. I just saw it again recently on one of their countdown shows (40 Greatest Plays At The Plate or something to that effect.) It's contemporary film, it just wasn't included, for whatever reason, in the official World Series highlights.

This all came up a few months ago and I couldn't find the footage on YouTube, so I ended up just withdrawing the whole assertion but having seen it again so recently, I felt compelled to mention it since the subject came up again.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Making a correction. In my opening post I did make an error. What I pointed to as Jackies toe was incorrect.
I would almost bet my life that the object was Yogi's mitt, can't imagine it being anything other than his mitt.

After watching a DVD I have, "100 Years of The World Series" over and over on a 55 inch screen and a 32 inch screen which gives a sharper image than the 55 inch screen.
Slo mo, frame by frame, my slo mo of the video's slow mo.
I could understand how many make a safe call looking at the still photo.
Because the still appears to show Jackie's foot passed Yogi's mitt, but what took place before that plate contact..
But, there is no high quality photo that I know of taken before he makes contact with the plate. Anyone have any to offer.
How can it be said with certainty that there was no tag, not to say there was but we just don't know.

I notice no comments on Frank Kellert's take on the play, he is looking right down on the play. But again, possible he could be wrong but I do have to give him some consideration, he had the best view.
The only view we have of the play before Jackie makes contact with the plate is in the video. But the video quality is no where near the still photo.

Anyway, here is that photo that I corrected.