When Erick Aybar jabbed at and missed a suicide squeeze attempt in the ninth inning of the Angels’ Game 4 loss to the Red Sox, which may have cost Los Angeles the series, the controversy seemed to be whether manager Mike Scioscia should have been calling for a bunt.

With the score 2-2 and Reggie Willits stationed at third base with one out, Scioscia put the squeeze on with a 2-0 count. That may be a good bunting count, but when Aybar failed to make contact, Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek chased down Willits and tagged him just shy of the third-base bag, before falling to the ground and losing control of the ball upon impact.

Sure, Aybar executed nine sacrifices in 2008, but with two chances to bring Willits home with the go-ahead run, a squeeze play was an unnecessary gamble. Professional hitters are taught to shrink their strike zone to their favorite hitting area when they are up 2-0, 3-0 or 3-1. If the pitch isn’t in their preferred zone, they take it.

That approach would have allowed Aybar, a switch-hitter batting left-handed against Boston’s Manny Delcarmen, to look for a pitch that he could hit hard to the right side. He had three strikes to get it done and Chone Figgins on deck.

The squeeze attempt certainly has been a hot topic of discussion in the Los Angeles area. Scioscia has repeatedly defended the decision, saying he would do it again with Aybar at the plate.

"It was an extremely high-percentage play given the count, the guy that was on base and the guy that was in the batter's box,” Scioscia told Ben Bolch of the Los Angeles Times. “And I'll tell you what, if it happens again, we're doing it again and Erick's getting that bunt down. I can guarantee you that."

Scioscia’s decision isn’t the sole source of controversy surrounding the game-changing play. The day after the Red Sox pulled out the 3-2 win on a Jed Lowrie RBI single in the bottom of the ninth, ESPN’s Dave Campbell said he believed third-base umpire Tim Welke made the wrong call on Varitek’s tag of Willits.

Campbell compared Varitek’s tag to a home-plate collision between a baserunner and catcher. If Willits had barreled into Varitek at the plate and knocked him over, he would have been safe if the ball rolled out of Varitek’s glove at any time. It doesn’t matter if Varitek controlled the ball at the time of impact. If the ball is dislodged as a result of the collision or Varitek hitting the ground, Willits is safe.

Another example cited by Campbell is the outfielder who collides into a wall to make a catch. Even if the outfielder gains possession of the ball on the warning track, if the ball springs loose from his glove as a result of hitting the wall or falling, it’s in play and the runner is aboard. The same is true if a player collides with a teammate and the ball leaves his glove later without the player removing it intentionally.

An umpire’s approach governing a play at the plate is that a ball dropped due to the collision with the runner or landing hard on the ground is not a tag. The catcher must demonstrate that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. Campbell applied the same logic to the Willits-Varitek play at third.

It appeared Welke wasn’t aware of the loose ball until the Angels protested, but he had made his call and stuck to it. At the very least, perhaps the umpires should have gathered to discuss the play.

Whether Scioscia made the right call appears to be a more controversial issue than Welke's call, but Campbell suggested that it might be a different story if the play had gone against the Red Sox or Yankees. Then it might be Welke’s decision that would be the focus of intense media scrutiny.