 |
| Porter entertains Gibbons as Layne walks in. |
This is Alan Porter (64)'s first ejection of 2013.
Alan Porter now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 + 2 MLB + 2 Y = 4).
Crew Chief Jerry Layne now has 3 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (2 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 3).
*OBR Rule 2.00 [Strike]: A strike is a legal pitch, which (e) touches the batter as he strikes at it.
This is the 85th ejection of 2013.
This is the 39th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Blue Jays' 7th ejection of 2013, 1st in the AL East (TOR 7; TB 4; BAL 3; BOS 2; NYY 1).
This is John Gibbons' 4th ejection of 2013 and first since May 24, 2013 (Dan Bellino; QOC = Y).
This is Alan Porter's first ejection since June 10, 2012 (Bobby Valentine; QOC = N).
Wrap: Detroit Tigers vs. Toronto Blue Jays, 7/2/13
Video: Dead ball strike results in ejection, clear example of why Buck Martinez needs a rule book (TOR)
31 comments :
Someone please inform the voices accompanying the baseball game that the sign for "foul" might actually mean something else too.
I haven't seen the video yet, but the MLB.com writeup is calling it a foul ball call.
For the record, the official record (incl Gameday) has it marked as a missed bunt as opposed to a foul ball. The sequence up to the call in question is:
Ball one
Foul ball - strike one
Missed bunt - strike two
Rediculous. The ball missed the bat by six inches, but fell to the plate where batters foot was touching. Porter correctly ruled strike, as batter offered at the pitch, but this was not signaled. He signalled "time" similar to a foul call.
http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=28546919&c_id=mlb
Announcers are clueless, as usual.
The lady hosting Quick Pitch on MLB Network just said basically the same stuff about it being ruled a foul ball and being a blown call.
Its being called a foul ball on the MLB Network too.
actually... Porter might have said "foul ball"
Porter did say foul ball... this should be changed to incorrect as it is clear that he did not foul the ball off.
"He called it a foul ball and I didn't think he fouled it off," Gibbons said. "I thought he pulled the bat back, he called it foul. My complaint was that I was looking to see if he can get some help."
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130702&content_id=52521710&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
Apparently the announcers are not so clueless if Gibbons is stating he was thrown out arguing the foul ball call. It would appear the official scorer is the one who is clueless in this instance.
Challenge. If Porter ruled that the ball was fouled and Gibbons was ejected under this premise [as Porter did provide the foul ball signal], Porter missed this call and ejected Gibbons under a false pretense.
Doesn't matter the call, Foul ball or attempted bunt!!! Either way the result is the same!!! Strike!!! Correct call
From UEFL Rule 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 call was dead ball and strike. Whether or not Porter said it was foul is completely irrelevant.
The outcome of the at-bat was not holistically changed -- regardless of whether Porter had a foul ball or not, the batter attempted to strike the pitch. It's a strike, any way you slice it.
In re 085 Porter 1
This appeal has been summarily denied by the UEFL Appellate Interpreter.
Pursuant to UEFL Rule 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. Replays conclusively indicate the ruling of a strike was correct.
As such, the ruling of strike is correct and the appeal is denied pursuant to Rule 6-2-b-6-a. Certiorari denied.
Well Gibbons did say he did not think the ball was fouled off, however he also said he thought that Kawasaki pulled the bat back which indicates that he would have gone out and argued that point regardless of whether the pitch was called a foul bunt or a missed bunt strike. The real thing Gibbons was arguing was a hit by pitch and he was likely going to be ejected arguing that point even if the call had been correctly ruled a missed bunt strike as opposed to the incorrect ruling of a foul bunt.
Porter called it foul on the field. Pretty obvious.
He could of just been calling time. Just because he put his hands up doesn't mean he was calling foul. He probably thought it was an easy call and didn't think he needed to point out that the batter was attempting a bunt.
This is actually the Jays' 8th ejection of the season, not 7th. Gibbons has been ejected 4 times, DeMarlo Hale has been ejected once, and Bautista, Encarnacion, and Lawrie have each been ejected once. (I think Encarnacion is listed under the Rays instead of the Blue Jays and that's where the problem lies)
There are some really ridiculous comments on this forum. Who cares if Porter says foul ball, dead ball, strike or steeeeeerrrrrriike? The ball is dead, which Porter got right. It counts as a strike, which Porter got right. The batter never made an attempt to go to first, which tells us he knew what was going on. Gibson missed the whole rule book chapter on bunting...He deserves to get tossed and 4 EJs before the all start break is something that MLB should be looking at. Here's the bottom line...regardless of whether it's a foul or a strike, from the Jays dugout it's more than obvious the batter offered at the pitch. That's a strike there should be no argument. Crew chief could have tossed the guy once he left the top step.
Why are all of the people on this forum bashing the umps at every opportunity? I thought this forum started about the love of sports officiating, with objective and productive discussion and criticism.
Not every situation needs to embarrass someone. Managers should know the rules of the game they manager--and most do. Announcers are not supposed to be unbiased...get over it!
The only thing Gibby can logically argue here is that Muni did not try to bunt the ball and this is a hit by pitch, but I think the video is pretty clear in showing him try to hit that pitch. If he was really arguing the issue of foul ball vs strike or batter hit by pitch on a swing, well... I can see why Toronto leads the league in team ejections...
If he called it a FOUL, he was wrong, but in either case the bat was not pulled back so it would have been a strike. However, I am curious what Porter actually said. This is an interesting one.
Did they take the video down? Link redirects to Bailey's no hitter.
Facts....those crazy things that get in the way of idiots! Fact 1-The signal for foul and dead ball are the same. Fact 2-We don't have audio of the call, so we are speculating either way. Fact 3-Skipper was ejected for continuing an argument about getting help. Fact 4-Help isn't needed, the batter clearly attempted to hit the pitch. If a MLB ump can't get that one, he should be doing LL. That was an easy call for HP to make.
Did Gibbons spit at the umpires shoes right after getting ejected?
Al Porter put up the time out sign immediately before the ball getting blocked by the catcher. Therefore Porter is saying that it is a foul bunt. Even though Kawasaki attempted and missed trying to bunt the ball and earned a strike two, Porter should not have made the time signal immediately and therefore by doing so, tells the fans, manager, coaches, players, and wonderful Buck Martinez that it is a fouled bunt. Therefore John Gibbons had every right to argue because he assumed that Porter called it a fouled bunt and he believed the ball never touched Kawasaki's bat. If Porter signals strike or a missed bunt, then Gibbons would have no reason to argue and should have been ejected immediately for trying to argue strikes. Next time instead of attacking Buck Martinez, why don't you make fun of the umpires for improperly signalling the call. All you idiots make me sick in that you always protect the umpires and make fun of the broadcasters in any situation.
YOU ARE CLUELESS AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Al Porter put up the time out sign immediately before the ball getting blocked by the catcher. Therefore Porter is saying that it is a foul bunt. Even though Kawasaki attempted and missed trying to bunt the ball and earned a strike two, Porter should not have made the time signal immediately and therefore by doing so, tells the fans, manager, coaches, players, and wonderful Buck Martinez that it is a fouled bunt. Therefore John Gibbons had every right to argue because he assumed that Porter called it a fouled bunt and he believed the ball never touched Kawasaki's bat. If Porter signals strike or a missed bunt, then Gibbons would have no reason to argue and should have been ejected immediately for trying to argue strikes. Next time go eat yourself to sleep, rather than making stupid and classless comments.
The hands up in this instance is the appropriate signal, "time", because the ball hit the batter. It's also a strike, since the batter offered at the pitch. I have no idea what Porter was calling (and I'm not taking anyone's word for it but his), but neither does anybody in the broadcast booth. My comment was directed to commentators (not just these, but generally) who tend to automatically rail against umpires. In my opinion it is "classless and stupid" for one group of professionals, with the perception of the public in their hands as media personalities, to so consistently debase umpires despite rarely knowing the pertinent rules or giving umpires any benefit of the doubt. You accuse me of making "stupid and classless comments", but your post is full of false information. I grant you that if he points at the batter and then signals a strike (after holding his hands up signalling time), it removes all ambiguity.
wow what a terrible comment, I love umpire I am one myself but GIBBONS ejections have been: this one, balls/strikes when it was an incorrect call, defending his player, and after a reversed call where the U2 made a bobble call on a play at 1st base (he was just upset at the process and reversal rather than the actual call). How many times have we seen an ejection come after a reversal on a huddle?
It was because of that incident which likely prompted Gibbons to ask for them to discuss it.
This play was weird because so many things could have been called. You can very subtley hear Porter say foul ball, not a missed bunt, probably mistook bat for foot, fair enough. I assume that is what the call was on the field. Gibbons was probably asking for a hbp and for the umpires to huddle up
We only see the one replay here but after watching many angles there could be a lot of things at work here: when the ball Kawasaki's his foot was actually slightly in the air, could be time no hit by pitch called strike.
It is actually very debatable as to whether or not that is a swing, I see Kawasaki everyday, he does that move like Ichiro where he is running to first before he hits the ball. On this play from the side angle (not in this clip) it actually looks like he pulled it back but continued his stride to run.look closely at 0:32 of the clip the ball hasent even gotten to the plate and he is pulling back, you can tell by the position of Kawasaki's elbow and the direction the bat is going, the bat is moving up and is about 2 feet from the ball. pause it at 0:33 and see where the bat is.
Yes he follows the ball with the bat head but on the side angle it is moving back to his body as the ball gets there, It gets confusing because he is already running to 1st base. The ball was about 2 inches off the ground, the bat never came within a foot of the ground.
Just my personal opinion of what to call here:, it should be, no swing. acknowledge the hbp, deny him first because he moved into the pitch and call it a ball.
Post a Comment