HP Umpire Kerwin Danley ejected Cardinals Manager Mike Matheny for arguing a safe call in the top of the 1st inning of the Royals-Cardinals game. With none out and two on, Royals batter Eric Hosmer hit a 1-2 curveball from Cardinals pitcher Joe Kelly back to the box, Kelly attempting to catch the strong line drive before throwing to first base and then to second for an attempted triple play. Originally ruled a catch (but never signaled or gestured as such), umpire Danley reversed his call upon argument from Royals manager Ned Yost and conference with umpires Porter, Nauert and DeMuth. Replays indicate the comebacker was fielded on a hop and subsequent runner placement appeared appropriate, the call was correct.*^ At the time of the ejection, the Royals and Cardinals were tied, 0-0.
This is Kerwin Danley (44)'s first ejection of 2012.
Kerwin Danley now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Crew Chief Dana DeMuth now has 3 point in the UEFL's Crew division (2 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 3).
*QOC is correct per Rule 6-2-7, which specifies that post-consultation ejections are subject to final QOC.
^After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed by the UEFL Appeals Board in a 6-0 decision.
*Historical Appeals Board decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.*
UEFL Standings Update
This is the 71st ejection of 2012.
This is the 36th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is the second consecutive ejection during a Cardinals home game.
This is the Cardinals' 2nd ejection of 2012, tied for 2nd in the NL Central (HOU 3, PIT 2, CHC 2, MIL 1).
This is Mike Matheny's first ejection since April 24 (Bill Welke; QOC = Incorrect).
This is Danley's first ejection since August 11 (Ned Yost; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: Royals at Cardinals, 6/16/12
Video: Umpires Overturn Potential Triple Play (MLB Must C: Curious)
Video: Apparent Triple Play Argued, Changed; Mike Matheny Ejected for Arguing Reversed Call (UEFL)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
48 comments :
Throwing the challenge flag. He did signal a catch. And the replay I saw showed no hop so I look forward to seeing the video you saw!
For some reason, it has been proclaimed that line drives versus one hop traps are the call of HPU - even though he is straight lined on the view, which could be blocked by the BR and F2. Seriously, wouldn't it be better to assign the call to U1 or U3. Two calls in two weeks say so. Even if HPU got the trap correct, part of the mechanic is to make an emphatic safe sign (as did the HPU in Colorado) so either team is not placed at a disadvantage from an ambiguous call.
As a heads-up, you called Danley "Nelson".
ETA - I was at the 1980 NLCS Phillies @ Astros game that had a similar play with a soft line drive back to Vern Ruhle. I could not tell if Ruhle trapped it, but it looked like he threw over to first like he was trying to get the sure "force out" at first. He never checked the runner at second. The original call was triple play. After a 15 minute conference with the NL President and the crew, they decided on two outs with R2 advancing to third. IIRC, they also ruled that Ruhle initially made a catch. I will never understand how they came up with 2 outs and R3
"This is the second consecutive ejection during a Cardinals home game."
This still doesn't make any sense. Nobody was ejected last night.. White Sox player was ejected in the previous series...
For goodness sake, some people... It means that the last ejection before this one also happened at Busch Stadium, not that it happened last night. Gosh.
The replay is up on MLB At Bat. But it doesn't reveal anything. The tempo of the "catch" looked more like a short hop. It cuts away from Danley before showing if he made any call whatsoever. Perhaps the most revealing part of the replay shows the pitcher saying something to Molina behind his glove while they were walking back to the dugout and Molina cracking a smile. Dollars to donuts he said "I trapped it".
ETA - the person with the best view was the Cardinal F3. He took the throw and his actions were such that he thought it was a "force" out mechanic on BR and not an appeal on R1. He threw the ball BACK to F1 who then threw to second base for an appeal on R2. If F3 had thought it was a catch, why didn't he throw down to second himself to complete the triple play?
Wasn't there a bunt that was ruled no catch about a month ago but the pitcher caught the ball but no help was asked for by the Plate Umpire? Guess a short hop at the mound can be seen by the corner umpires from their positions behind 1st and 3rd base near the grass on this one but on one where the pitcher has to run forward to dive at a bunt in the air, even the corner guys are blocked out and the call must live and die with the PU.
Since the ball made it to the mound and umpires on the corners got a shot at it, a conference can be called and the plate umpire does not have to live and die with this call. Many managers would argue this is the plate umpires only, especially when it will benefit them, but if it will not, they will argue just the opposite for help.
@anon 12:09
How do you know he signaled a catch? I saw no where in the video that he signaled a catch. Also this is an obvious no catch the umpire's got it right, and base runner placement is the umpires judgement. Correct call all the way around.
Well both sets of broadcasters said he signaled it, Matheny said he signaled it. Wasn't it said last week that a ball hit to the pitcher is the call of the homeplate umpire? Even if the pitcher is facing away from him????
So how can the second base umpire overrule this call? That's exactly what happened here. The crew chief (at second) came out of the conference making the call. The Home Plate Umpire should have changed his call if somebody provided him with evidence to do so. But that's HIS call. And his crew chief blew it.
@ anon 3:04
The crew chief gave the signal simply because he is the crew chief. That doesnt mean he is the one that over ruled him. My guess is that the 1st and 3rd base umpires said the saw it hit the ground. Also the broadcaster probably didnt see him signal anything they were just going with the blame the umpire thing and had no idea what he signaled. Matheny was lying he was just trying to get a call. Also I couldnt even tell which annoucers were in the video but one of them said he didnt even make a signal, not that he made an out call. So you were lying also.
@ Gil
I dont know what you did with the UEFL videos but I can see them now. I could never see them before so whatever you changed thank you and I hope you dont change them again. If you didnt change anything it must of been my computer.
Play after play and by and large, the replays are useless. Are we really going to use replay to decide fair/foul? Judgment on where to place the runners - are the crews going to do a frame-by-frame reconstruction to place the runners? Let's not go there.
On review of Matt Cain's perfect game, he had 29 called strikes - of which TEN - more than a third were actually BALLS. I wonder how many of the TEN mistakes were for strike three? Was any a ball four?
Clearly, the easiest call to make with video technology is the ball/strike call. Umps could still botch up checked swings and caught/not caught foul tips to their heart's content. But I think fans and managers would be very content to have a ball or strike defined by a pitch tracker technology as completely objective. It would no doubt do better than 67% accuracy rate when the plate ump gets Stockholm Syndromed into a desire to please 47,000 roaring fans. No ump is going to want to walk in Joyce's shoes again. No wonder we get a no-hitter a week and a perfect game a month these days.
Anon 3:09 the crew chief isn't supposed to make that call. The calling umpire is the only person who can change his call. Not the crew chief, not a partner.
Molina was interviewed by Cards radio on the post game. He said he clearly saw the ball bounce before pitcher Kelly trapped it. But that Kelly sold a catch to the plate ump and he threw it around to get the triple play appeals. Molina said, "It is important that they get the call right and in the end they did". (I guess he still has a lot of kissing up to do for his spit fire incident earlier this year).
So, there was no catch. Danley incorrectly called it a catch. After conference the umpire crew confirmed there was no catch and the runners got to the bases the way the play played itself out. This sequence is confirmed by Molina,!the Cardinal catcher.
did matheny protest?
"For some reason, it has been proclaimed that line drives versus one hop traps are the call of HPU - even though he is straight lined on the view, which could be blocked by the BR and F2. Seriously, wouldn't it be better to assign the call to U1 or U3."
How would that be better? Unless they are parallel to the play (which they are not, they are diagonal, with the pitcher's glove being obstructed possibly by any other part of his body - or something else. There is no perfect place to be all of the time. Shit happens. And in this case, other than making a human mistake I am not sure what Danley did wrong. He signaled catch, which he thought it was. Then they reversed it to get the call right after discussing together (looks like the 3B umpire is saying "It bounced" but that could have simply been based on the group discussion and not his own impetus). Anyway, 9/10 the umpire will get that call correct. And in Danley's defense, man that was CLOSE.
As I asserted above, if Molina could see it, the ump at HP should have as well.
"Molina was interviewed by Cards radio on the post game. He said he clearly saw the ball bounce before pitcher Kelly trapped it. But that Kelly sold a catch to the plate ump and he threw it around to get the triple play appeals."
You can't protest a judgment call only a misapplication of the rules.
On a play like a questionable trapped line drive back to the mound, you are most likely to get the call correct the closer you are to perpendicular. The plate ump is completely parallel to the line of travel of the ball - otherwise known as being straight lined. Molina was getting out of his couch as Kelly was making the play. The batter was LH but a RH batter would have been crossing the line of sight just as the "catch" was being made. Take 100 plays like that and let U1 make the call and another 100 with HPU making the call and U1 will make more correct calls. Sh!t may happen but it is easier to deal with formed stools than diarrhea.
If you have the MLB At Bat version of the replay, Kelly gloves the liner between the 00:37 and 00:38 mark. At that frame, Danley's face is almost completely blocked from view by Molina's head as he is coming out if a crouch. The LH batter does not vacate the line of sight very quickly and it appears that his shoulder may obstruct Danley's line of sight as the liner went to the first base side of the pitcher. It is very easy to see why/how Molina could see the one hop whereas Danley could not.
@Anon 3:16: You clearly don't pay much attention to the site. There are examples on this site of commenters having the computer generated pitch graph right in front of them and STILL refusing to accept the umpire was correct.
The video doesn't show Danley making any call. It shows Demuth making the call.
One of my best friends is Vern's nephew. I ate lunch with Vern once -- I wish I would've thought to ask what really happened there. Vern passed away about 5 years ago, so I can't ask the question now.
Hey BAPACop, you realize that the technology is as imperfect (at this point) as some of the aspects of the human element? I think people hear "Ohh, computer!" and think that everything will be perfect. Those of us who work on computers for a living know that is NOT the case. And FYI (from a NY Times article):
"But, umpires have pointed out, the accuracy of the system suffers once a pitch enters the strike zone — because the zone hovers above the five-sided plate as more of a three-dimensional prism, not the rectangle that television viewers see. They have maintained that although QuesTec (like Zone Evaluation) collects data in three dimensions, a hitter’s position in the batter’s box or distractions like bat movement can cloud the information, making it unfit for evaluative decisions about umpires."
B-i-n-g and then we have an -o.
"If you have the MLB At Bat version of the replay, Kelly gloves the liner between the 00:37 and 00:38 mark. At that frame, Danley's face is almost completely blocked from view by Molina's head as he is coming out if a crouch. The LH batter does not vacate the line of sight very quickly and it appears that his shoulder may obstruct Danley's line of sight as the liner went to the first base side of the pitcher. It is very easy to see why/how Molina could see the one hop whereas Danley could not."
Then Danley needs to clear the catcher more quickly. Maybe there is a reason he gets hit (PAINFULLY) more than any other umpire it seems.
"On a play like a questionable trapped line drive back to the mound, you are most likely to get the call correct the closer you are to perpendicular. The plate ump is completely parallel to the line of travel of the ball - otherwise known as being straight lined. Molina was getting out of his couch as Kelly was making the play. The batter was LH but a RH batter would have been crossing the line of sight just as the "catch" was being made. Take 100 plays like that and let U1 make the call and another 100 with HPU making the call and U1 will make more correct calls. Sh!t may happen but it is easier to deal with formed stools than diarrhea. "
I could not disagree more. If you're going to tell me that a straight-on view of a potential scoop is not as accurate as one from the -not-even-side-but-more-of-a-diagnoal, I will disagree vehemently.
And MLB seems to agree because this is the HP ump's call, not a base umpire's!
"It is very easy to see why/how Molina could see the one hop whereas Danley could not. "
That proves my above points about how there is NO way a base umpire can see that better. No way at all! Well, unless he's Superman. But even then the X-Ray vision would screw it all up and he'd be staring at some woman's panties, but I digress.
Well, I guess this was one of those once in 25 years plays that the straight line mechanic failed and caused Dankey to initially get the call wrong. The last one being Doug Harvey (perhaps the best umpire of the last 50 years) when he missed an identical call in the 1980 NLCS.
@Anon 6:25: I never said the technology was perfect. But the UEFL takes the inaccuracy into account when declaring a QOC and yet even when we have the chart and the analysis taking the inaccuracy into account and they both show the pitch was unquestionably a strike, we still have people saying things like "If that's a strike, a 7-iron is a bat."
Well, Danley obviously thought a base ump had a better view because he change his initial catch call to no catch after deferring to a base ump. That proves my point as well.
Totally unrelated to this ejection, but here's a bizarre little story for all the umps out there. I umpired four 15-16 VFW games today, and two of the four were no-hitters. It seems like even at the teener age the no-hitter epidemic has reached a fever pitch.
No point in challenging. The crew (eventually) got it right.
What people are missing is that Danley is *required* to make a call here. He did the best he could. He probably knew he didn't have a good look at it, but it's the plate umpire's job in a 4-man system to make this call. He can't just do nothing and hope someone else will make a call, cause they *won't* -- the other 3 umpires know it doesn't, by the mechanics manual, belong to them.
But if he calls it "safe" then the pitcher knows to throw it to second for a double play ball. According to the St. Louis media that is what the argument was about. The pitcher reacted to the umpire.
And once again mechanics get thrown by the wayside. This is Danley's call; not Demuth's. They blew that aspect of it as well.
@ETA, ANON,
1980 NLCS, So are you guys saying it was Doug Harvey who took 15 minutes and talked to the NL President? One of you mentioned the incident and the conference, the other mentioned Doug Harvery. I'm not disagreeing, I just find it hard to believe Mr. Harvey would do that, I mean talk to the NL President. I would think he would correct this on his own.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1980/B10110HOU1980.htm
Yes it was Harvey...
Harvey tells the story in Luciano's STRIKE TWO also...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/nats-yankees-tyler-moore-was-safe/2012/06/17/gJQAigTIiV_blog.html
@anon 6:37 surprisingly Mike Shannon is actually a good announcer its just that he isn't as good as as an announcer as he used to be
Rich, for what it is worth I read an interview and Vern said he caught it. But it would have been great if you also had a personal anecdote. Vern subbed in for the second half of the season for JR after the stroke. He went something like 10-1. It is hard to see how JR could have done any better. I believe that Game 4 was Vern's last appearance.
I hope the board confirms this as correct. The call is difficult for PU off the bat, that mask can be an impedence in such situations (though Danley's hockey style goalie / catcher's helmet should provide a wider angle than the mask). They got it right in the end and made the correct call based on the rules available. No way to "assume" the double play, just like with official scoring and no error given to the middle infield when one out is recorded.
There's no way to "assume" a lot of things. That doesn't stop umpires from doing so.
I'm sure that Mike Matheny appreciates the fact that the radio announcer thinks he's a dog!
A couple of things:
#1) This was trapped as you can see a dark mark in the dirt where the ball hit before being trapped. They got together and got the call right.
#2) Danley would have had a much better chance at getting this one right from the get-go if he wasn't working on a knee. If you watch, he takes too long to get up from that position and Molina blocks him out (perhaps the BR, as well).
And yet a few more things: Danley was unavailable for comment after the game because he was dehydrated and getting IV fluids. U/2 the crew chief was signaling to Danley to give him a call of catch/ no catch. Danley had not made a call because HE COULD NOT SEE THE PLAY (batter, catcher, face mask, sweat in eyes, straight line view being a few of the assumed confounding factors). Yet EVERY other umpire saw it bounce. Even Matheny said he thought it was one hopped. His argument was that Danley's incorrect call deprived the Cards of a chance at a double play. The crew chief (Demeuth??) said if Kelly had gone directly to second, he would have granted the second out.
When I googled Doug Harvey and the 1980 NLCS Vern Ruhle play he said he was blocked from view and called it no catch. After conferring U1 and U3 said they had a catch. He made reference to the "jeopardy rule" saying that it was "simple" to come up with the correct call. He felt R1 was too far off the bag and would have been out regardless. R2 was put "in jeopardy" and would have held at 2B if he had signaled correctly.
One is left to conclude that the crews have "special signals"'where they realize that the liner to F1 is the PU call - but that such call is VERY susceptible to being blocked, so the PU welcomes any other of the crew who actually saw the play is welcome to correct (or affirm his original call
Edited to Add: is the notion of "putting the runner in jeopardy" discussed in J/M manual? Is there any discussion of "putting the defense in jeopardy"? Contemplating the alternatives, it would seem more weight is placed on "protecting" the runner from a bad call.
Finally, does F3 Alan Craig have ADD or something? He forgot to tag up at third last night to score the tying run and got his behind saved when Molina got a two out hit to keep the game going in extra innings. Recall that when Kelly threw to 1B to initially get the "appeal" out call, Craig threw it right back to him. Considering his base running blunder it is obvious he didnt have the baseball IQ to sell it and excitedly make a throw to second for a TRIPLE PLAY
After review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Corect" has been affirmed in a unanimous 6-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Six Appeals Board members elected to Confirm the Original Ruling.
Per Curiam Opinion:
At issue in 071: Kerwin Danley (1) is the Quality of Correctness. The Original Ruling was a "Correct" Quality of Correctness determined by Gil. Danley had made the ruling of a no catch and trap by Cardinals pitcher Joe Kelly.
The issues at hand are 1) whether the ruling of a no catch was correct or not, as pertaining to a trapped ball and 2) the mechanical quality demonstrated during the play.
On the issue of whether a catch was made by Kelly, the Appeals Board has determined that Kelly did not successfully catch the ball on the fly, but rather the ball had contacted the ground and Kelly trapped the ball. Although as RichMSN states that the plate umpire is "possibly the worst positioned umpire" to make the call, there was indeed a "quick short-hop" on the play. Simply and straightforward, since the ball touched the ground, there was no catch on the play. The final uling on the play prior to Matheny's ejection was that it was a trapped ball, thus the Quality of Correctness petains to that ruling, which was corect.
Furthermore, the Board determined that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest the mechanics of the umpires on the play were incorrect, confusing or otherwise impactful on the play. The Board has differentiated this ejection from that of Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1) because there was no difinitive evidence of a call made duing the play, and if such call was made it was unlike that of a foul ball, where the playing action immediately becomes dead upon the call of "foul".
Lastly, the Board defers to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-7, which states:
"Quality of Correctness for an ejection that occurs after umpire consultation, wherein the initial call was correct or incorrect, and after consultation, the initial call was changed to incorrect or correct, shall be adjudged as to whether the call after consultation is correct or incorrect" and 6-2-b-6-a: "Quality of Correctness is governed by the (in)correctness of the call made, not by the quality of reasoning given for such a call."
The fact of Danley getting together with the crew to change his original call does not have relevance to the Quality of Correctness because the change of the call to that of a trap was made prior to Matheny's ejection. A crew conference does not have any determination upon the Quality of Correctness, only the call itself that was made immediately prior to the ejection.
Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.
Confirmed: Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire, BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag
Upheld: None
Overturned: None
Deferred: None
Abstained: Gil (Posted Original QOC)
Quality of Correctness has been affirmed, 6-0.
Post a Comment