Close Call Sports objectively tracks and analyzes close and controversial calls in sport, with great regard for the rules and spirit of the game. Developed from The Left Field Corner's MLB Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (UEFL), baseball's number one source for umpire ejections, video instant replay reviews and their corresponding calls, with great regard for the rules and spirit of the game.
Pages
▼
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Ejections: Jim Reynolds (1)
HP Umpire Jim Reynolds ejected Red Sox Manager Terry Francona for arguing a non-balk call in the top of the 4th inning of the Red Sox-A's game. With no outs and one on, A's pitcher Brett Anderson picked off Red Sox base runner Dustin Pedroia. Anderson to first basemen Daric Barton to shortstop Cliff Pennington. Replays indicate Anderson appeared to have made a movement associated with his natural pitching motion, followed by a throw to first base, the call was incorrect. The call is now correct.* At the time of the Francona ejection, the A's were leading, 1-0. The A's ultimately won the contest, 5-0.
This is Jim Reynolds (77)'s first ejection of 2011. Jim Reynolds now has 4 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4). Jim Reynolds is owned as a Secondary Umpire by Bino, who is now in 8th place in the UEFL with 1 point. *Quality of Correctness was challenged and affirmed ("Incorrect" ==> "Correct").
This the 10th ejection of 2011. This is the 6th Manager ejection of 2011.
I sure hope first base umpire Mike Dimuro bought drinks for his partners afterwards. His non-call causes the baserunner to argue with the second base umpire and the manager to argue with the plate umpire who has to do the tossing.
That was egregious, just awful by Reynolds and I think the 1B was Welke. Also notice in the video that when Pedroia says the 2B Ump "Who's call is that", he walks away and goes not mine. Gotta love that, he probably knows they missed it.
How can you possibly tell from that direction.. appears as though Anderson just picked up his foot and when he saw Pedroia running he stepped to first. He gained the required distance and direction to first.
CHALLENGE - another angle is needed to determine correctness of call.. dont trust what the commentators say!
Agree that it's a balk, although I think that the rationale should be 8.01c (Comment) - failing to step directly to the base... as opposed to 8.05a - failing to deliver after making a motion naturally associated with the pitch.
Sorry but I just don't see anything in that video that shows more of a step towards home than to first. I challenge the correctness of this call. I'm not overly familiar with the rules here but since no balk was called, wouldn't there have to be clear evidence of a balk to categorize it as wrong? To me, it's a toss-up which means we give the benefit of the doubt to the umpires.
I'm a Sox fan, but after seeing the replays several times, I still see no balk. The pitcher stepped toward the base within 45 degrees and threw directly to the first baseman. At no time did the pitcher commit to the plate.
always find it tough to call balks when i'm working...sometimes I'll see something that just doesn't look right, and I won't know what exactly it was...and by the time I figure it out, it's too late to call. Even in the game where Verlander did that weird thing, the umps didn't call a balk right away. had to get together and discuss it.
that was close to a balk but it was not a balk he clerley did not commit to going home with the pitch he definitly comited to first base thou the call should be correct
From the not-so-great angle we have on the replay, I would judge that the pitcher has both distance and direction towards first base, so if I were U2, and in the 'B' position, I definitely wouldn't be balking this play. If another replay were to show us U1's perspective, that might change my mind. But, I don't see anything in this particular replay that screams 'Balk'.
After review, the Quality of Correctness has been overturned. The call is now correct.
Upon initial examination, Anderson did appear to have made a movement associated with his natural pitching motion, followed by a throw to first base.
Upon further examination, including examination of the replay and real-time play, the determination of overturning the original Quality of Correctness was made. Upon further consultation of the initial play, and the use of other videos of Anderson's pitching motion (including from the stretch) it is apparent that he did not make a movement associated with his natural pitching motion. The video here shows head and leg movement differ while going to home plate in the stretch from his pickoff move.
I found this site yesterday and am reviewing previous posts from this year, therefore this comment is late. This is in regards of Jim Reynolds ejection of Terry Francona on 19 April 2011.
I believe that this could be a balk. I point to the Rule 8.05 Comment "Umpires should bear in mind
that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base
runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern."
However that is a judgement call, and therefore the no-call was made and it is therefore not a
balk. However if the tides were turned a balk was called and the opposing manager was tossed for
arguing, I do not feel there would be evidence to overturn it.
IMO, as 8.05c reads. A pitcher must step directly to the base. I do not see some magic 45 degree
rule. You either step to the base or you don't. Anything else is a balk under the premise of
deceiving a runner. I further point to this example. If Anderson threw "directly" then his bodies
momentum should also be in that direction. In this case, look where his momentum takes him.
Towards the plate.
IMO. Balk. Call was incorrect.
However, because this is a judgement call I will concede that whatever the umpires call balk or no balk an argument could be made in either direction. So we must follow what was called. Also I believe it is a rule this year that arguments regarding step balks will not be entertained, as evidense of Angel Hernadez ejection of Terry Francona during the Twins vs. Red Sox match in early May.
I sure hope first base umpire Mike Dimuro bought drinks for his partners afterwards. His non-call causes the baserunner to argue with the second base umpire and the manager to argue with the plate umpire who has to do the tossing.
ReplyDeleteThat was egregious, just awful by Reynolds and I think the 1B was Welke. Also notice in the video that when Pedroia says the 2B Ump "Who's call is that", he walks away and goes not mine. Gotta love that, he probably knows they missed it.
ReplyDeleteHow can you possibly tell from that direction.. appears as though Anderson just picked up his foot and when he saw Pedroia running he stepped to first. He gained the required distance and direction to first.
ReplyDeleteCHALLENGE - another angle is needed to determine correctness of call.. dont trust what the commentators say!
Agree that it's a balk, although I think that the rationale should be 8.01c (Comment) - failing to step directly to the base... as opposed to 8.05a - failing to deliver after making a motion naturally associated with the pitch.
ReplyDeleteRight call on your end (it was a balk), but the rule reference I think is mixed up.
ReplyDeleteYou are siting rule 8.05 A
The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with
his pitch and fails to make such delivery;
and this balk would fall under 8.05 C
The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before
throwing to that base;
Good call with it being incorrect but once again we have another video where the ejection is not seen..
ReplyDeleteIts about time Francona stands up for his team.
Challenge.
ReplyDeleteNo evidence that his foot crosses the back edge of the rubber. Also appears that he steps toward first base.
At worse this is inconclusive.
Sorry but I just don't see anything in that video that shows more of a step towards home than to first. I challenge the correctness of this call. I'm not overly familiar with the rules here but since no balk was called, wouldn't there have to be clear evidence of a balk to categorize it as wrong? To me, it's a toss-up which means we give the benefit of the doubt to the umpires.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Sox fan, but after seeing the replays several times, I still see no balk. The pitcher stepped toward the base within 45 degrees and threw directly to the first baseman. At no time did the pitcher commit to the plate.
ReplyDeleteLooks like a balk to me.
ReplyDeletealways find it tough to call balks when i'm working...sometimes I'll see something that just doesn't look right, and I won't know what exactly it was...and by the time I figure it out, it's too late to call. Even in the game where Verlander did that weird thing, the umps didn't call a balk right away. had to get together and discuss it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he stepped to the 45.
ReplyDeleteHe stepped more to home then to 1st.
They missed it.
I would agree that the original decision. It is very close, but I do not believe that he is stepping towards 1st base.
ReplyDeleteIs this very close? Yes. But it is s balk, they missed it.
That was a balk.
ReplyDeletethat was close to a balk but it was not a balk he clerley did not commit to going home with the pitch he definitly comited to first base thou the call should be correct
ReplyDeleteFrom the not-so-great angle we have on the replay, I would judge that the pitcher has both distance and direction towards first base, so if I were U2, and in the 'B' position, I definitely wouldn't be balking this play. If another replay were to show us U1's perspective, that might change my mind. But, I don't see anything in this particular replay that screams 'Balk'.
ReplyDeleteThis ruling has been challenged.
ReplyDeleteAfter review, the Quality of Correctness has been overturned. The call is now correct.
Upon initial examination, Anderson did appear to have made a movement associated with his natural pitching motion, followed by a throw to first base.
Upon further examination, including examination of the replay and real-time play, the determination of overturning the original Quality of Correctness was made. Upon further consultation of the initial play, and the use of other videos of Anderson's pitching motion (including from the stretch) it is apparent that he did not make a movement associated with his natural pitching motion. The video here shows head and leg movement differ while going to home plate in the stretch from his pickoff move.
Overturned.
I found this site yesterday and am reviewing previous posts from this year, therefore this comment is late. This is in regards of Jim Reynolds ejection of Terry Francona on 19 April 2011.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this could be a balk. I point to the Rule 8.05 Comment "Umpires should bear in mind
that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base
runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern."
However that is a judgement call, and therefore the no-call was made and it is therefore not a
balk. However if the tides were turned a balk was called and the opposing manager was tossed for
arguing, I do not feel there would be evidence to overturn it.
IMO, as 8.05c reads. A pitcher must step directly to the base. I do not see some magic 45 degree
rule. You either step to the base or you don't. Anything else is a balk under the premise of
deceiving a runner. I further point to this example. If Anderson threw "directly" then his bodies
momentum should also be in that direction. In this case, look where his momentum takes him.
Towards the plate.
IMO. Balk. Call was incorrect.
However, because this is a judgement call I will concede that whatever the umpires call balk or no balk an argument could be made in either direction. So we must follow what was called. Also I believe it is a rule this year that arguments regarding step balks will not be entertained, as evidense of Angel Hernadez ejection of Terry Francona during the Twins vs. Red Sox match in early May.