This is Dale Scott (5)'s second ejection of 2012.
Dale Scott now has 2 points in the UEFL (-2 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 2).
Crew Chief Dale Scott now has 4 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (3 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 4).
UEFL Standings Update
This is the 73rd ejection of 2012.
This is the Astros' 4th ejection of 2012, 1st in the NL Central (CHC, PIT, STL 2; MIL 1; CIN 0).
This is Doug Brocail's first ejection since 2008 and first as a coach (six as a player).
This is Dale Scott's first ejection since April 25 (Bud Black; QOC = Incorrect).
Wrap: Astros at Rangers, 6/17/12
Video: Brocail ejected by plate umpire Scott for arguing ninth inning strike call in 9-3 blowout of Astros
Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
37 comments :
that was 'thigh high'??
where on the retrosheet website does it show that he has 6 ejections as a player
Under the Bat: Left Throw: Right Height: 6'5" Weight: 220 line, it says "Ejections as player" starting in 1995 and going through 2008.
This video should be exhibit #1 in the argument not to use pitch f/x in calling balls and strikes. The chart shows it to be a strike, but nobody who knows baseball would consider that pitch to be a strike.
Any coach, player or manager who gets ejected for arguing balls and strike calls on a non-strike 3 or ball-four pitch in a blowout game should automatically be suspended and QOC should automatically be correct.
@ Anon 8:10
It makes no difference what the score is. Saying the QOC should be automatically correct makes it sounds like getting the call right doesn't matter in a blowout.
A strike is a strike, @8:09.... The catcher doesn't do any sort of job presenting this pitch, but that doesn't make it any less of a strike than one right down the middle.
I, for one, find it ridiculous when a pitcher misses his spot, forces the catcher to move his glove across the zone, and gives the pitch the appearance of being wild, and thus it gets called a ball, even if its still a strike. If they wanted pitches to be judged according to where they were caught, it would be in the rules.
Catcher seemed to catch this pitch oddly, which made it look lower than it was. As for the front edge of the plate, I agree it was a strike, possibly even thigh high, but the batter is standing at the back end of the batter's box, which makes the pitch lower than thigh high when it crosses the rear of the plate (well, it's a SINKER after all). If the batter stands at the front of the plate, no way this is at all controversial. But hey, rule book says the strike zone begins at the front edge of home plate, and that's what Scott called. Good call blue.
@anon 8:25 Let me start by saying...I hope your Babe Ruth/Legion schedule is off to a great start! However...that pitch is not a strike at ANY level of professional baseball. If you don't realize why it's not...then you'll need to spend a little bit of time around the game to understand why.
Remember, I agree with you to a certain extent...if a guy sets up off the outside corner and the pitcher throws a pitch that splits the inner 1/3 of the plate...get THAT pitch all day long. But anytime a catcher buries a pitch like that down at the shins, you just flat out can't call that one or they'll wear you out.
If this is a strike then the strike zone needs to be reconsidered and corrected. This is not a strike unless you're umpiring U9-10. Not even close. And to the people contesting that it crossed the plate and then "magically" dipped 3 feet between the front of the plate and where the catcher caught it, I suggest you familiarize yourself with physics. I am a physicist at a local college and would bet my job on the fact that this call was just plain wrong.
"A strike is a strike, @8:09.... The catcher doesn't do any sort of job presenting this pitch, but that doesn't make it any less of a strike than one right down the middle."
LOL, yeah, except for the fact that this crossed the plate BELOW his knees. Hmm, maybe they changed the strike zone this year and simply forgot to tell the rest of us umpires not doing MLB-level games. Obama did it.
B-i-n-g-o....
"This video should be exhibit #1 in the argument not to use pitch f/x in calling balls and strikes. The chart shows it to be a strike, but nobody who knows baseball would consider that pitch to be a strike. "
I am pretty certain that in the umpire evaluations they will throw out pitches that are butchered like this one.
Truth is, it's hard to call some pitches strikes when a catcher completely ruins them. I had one today in some pretty good adult ball that may or may not have been on the outside corner at the knees -- the catcher tried to stick it, missed it, and it rolled behind him. I really needed to see it into the glove, I didn't get that chance, I called it a ball. If you've never called (fairly) high level baseball, feel free to argue that I should've decided before the catcher misplayed it -- I'll then tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.
@Anon 8:09, 9:56: So... MLB umpires know nothing about baseball? Is that what you're saying?
Just a follow up to my comment -- Scott was able to call this a strike despite the poor handling of the ball, but that's not always going to be the case. Looks like the pitch is above the knee at the plate to me, BTW.
I see it above the knee at the plate. At the VERY LEAST... this is a knee high sinker when it first touches the strike zone. Torrealba didn't do Scott any favors in catching it like that, that's for sure.
Throw the box out..... 9-3 game.......3:20.......call strikes.......especially when it is one. For those that feel this pitch can never be called......take your skirt off and man up. Don't be afraid!
If you believe the Fx pitch track, which this site is entirely based on, then this is a strike today, tomorrow and every other day you work. The Astros had been complaining all series with Bucknor getting a post game ejection with Johnson (pitches called correctly), Miller getting Maxwell for an equipment violation the next day (pitches called correctly), and Scott calling this pitch and running Brocail for swearing out of the dugout. Keep calling strikes boys, they'll learn eventually.
What an amateur thing to say about this individual's umpire schedule. Shame on you if your a fellow umpire.
Dale Scott: "ehhhhhh, what's up doc?"
Doug Brocail: "you wascally wabbit."
Wabbit ears stwike again.
once again someone that has no idea what rabbit ears means!
@ Anon 2:26
Is there any video for these ejections (Bucknor and Miller)? I don't believe they have been noted on this site.
Anon 6:07AM clearly thinks that anytime someone gets run from the dugout it's "rabbit ears." Anon 6:07AM couldn't be more clueless.
I'm pretty sure, even from watching the videos, that Mills and Brocail were NOT muttering quietly to themselves.
My rule (and I don't work MLB games) is that I'll let you mutter and chirp, but when you act like you want to be heard, I'll hear you. Clearly, Mills/Brocail wanted to be heard. This is NOT a case of rabbit ears.
It's also unscientific, but this isn't an umpire who has a habit of being in the dugouts. Balkin' Bob? Sure, but Dale Scott doesn't generally go hunting for trouble.
Yeah, this is seriously the first time I have ever seen Dale Scott eject someone from the dugout, at least in the last 6 seasons I have been following ejections. I think Scott's demeanor during this ejection was excellent. His expression to me said "seriously Doug, it is 9-3 in the bottom of the ninth and you are not going to win this game" Also expect Brocail to recieve a one game suspension. If you are an assistant Coach and are ejected from the dugout you are not supposed to come onto the field or you get a one game suspension. This happened to Ron Wotus last year and Willie Randolph and Rick Eckstein in 2009. I am sure there are more I am not remembering.
To put this is context - the Astros were finishing up a very frustrating road trip. They have averaged about 11 Ks per game the month of June. They are leading the league in Ks. This was the road trip Matt Cain perfecto'ed them. In that thread the f/x showed that the PU had 29 called strikes and that 10.....ten.....TEN were balls. PU got more than 33% of those calls WRONG.. I am sure at least a couple were strike three. Maybe one could have been ball four. I think Brocail and Mills had more than they could take. Since the baseball gods (BBGs) seldom deign to come down from Olympus, the crew become accessible surrogates
It looked about .31 Altuves off the ground
As a physicist, it should be evident to you that it is entirely feasible to track the path of a projectile and plot it through a computer generated three dimensional grid. You can then superimpose a three dimensional strike zone. By rule, if the ball makes contact with any portion of that zone, it is a strike. Now, maybe that pitch was not calibrated properly, but the technology is there to call an objective strike zone with every pitch.
I think Brocail and Mills saw plenty of pitches thrown just like that by Astros called balls because "they didn't look like strikes". I think if every pitcher and every batter on every team went with an f/x strike zone, they would accept that pitch as a strike, knowing that they would get the same call.
Precisely. You've got 47,000 fans screaming on every pitch to see a perfect game. So the pitch is 4 inches outside. Cowboy up, git 'er done and call it a strike. Haven't you seen how high and outside Larsen's last pitch was In his perfect game. Besides, It feels great to be a part of history and it's just the lowly Adtros. Screw 'em if they can't take a joke.
This is a tough one.
First, the strike zone is at the front of the plate. No question, regardless of where the batter chooses to stand.
However, umpires are taught to consider the way the catcher handles the ball (NOT where the catcher catches the ball) as a factor in their call. This is because coaches and fans don't have the same view, and often rely on the catcher's actions.
But, at this level there should be much better catchers, and I can understand how an umpire who knows that he is being electronically graded (because the machine doesn't take the catcher into account) would give less credence to the catcher than he once might have.
Looking at the video, I would like think that, based on the catcher, I would not call this strike. However, I don't have Dale's view, and I don't have cameras and Questec looking at me.
This video does highlight a problem with strictly electronic pitch-calling, which some people on and off this site have lobbied for. The machine says this is a strike. But who would believe it? And without an umpire, who would the coach complain to?
Cool, you've been an umpire for a long time... so long that you can adjust the rules as you see fit... perhaps to make things easier for yourself. You don't have to watch the pitch at all, I suppose. Just watch where the catcher gets it and make your call, right? What if he misses it or it kicks off his glove? Whatever will you do?
It may or may not actually be the correct call, but since it doesn't piss off as many people, it doesn't really matter to you. Then, let's go further by insulting and putting down people who actually interpret and apply the rules as prescribed, because they do things differently.
Getting older must be so fun.
@ Jon Terry
"And without an umpire, who would the coach complain to?"
That creates an ultra-hilarious image in my mind, picturing Brocail yelling and screaming at some kind of robot. Would they be able to program the robot to toss him out?
@ Anon 7:17
With all due respect, you do realize we are all getting older, don't you?
@umpsrule I am sure the robot would literally toss Brocail out
"Just watch where the catcher gets it and make your call, right? What if he misses it or it kicks off his glove? Whatever will you do?"
If it's a pitch that's borderline where I feel I need to see it all the way to the glove, I call it a ball -- just like most other umpires do. Then their coach says, "You need to catch that ball!"
The bottom of the strike zone is not the knees. It is the hollow beneath the knee, and only the top part of the ball has to cross the top of the knee, just like the entire ball doesn't have to cross the plate. I've seen on the ESPN K-zone pitches in the dirt light up the strike zone.
Anon 7:17 - notice I said 'consider'. I didn't say call where the ball is caught. I specifically said not to do that. I said make the catcher's handling of the pitch part of the equation. Like I tell my own son, listen to all the words.
Post a Comment