These are Mike DiMuro (16)'s first and second ejections of 2011.
Mike DiMuro now has 8 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 8).
Mike DiMuro is owned as a Secondary Umpire by Spballsandstrikes, who is now in 6th place in the UEFL with 6 points.
*Quality of Correctness was challenged and deferred ("Correct" ==> "Correct")
*Quality of Correctness was challenged and deferred ("Correct" ==> "Correct")
**Per UEFL Rule 6.b.ii.e., the call is correct.
***A Post-Inning Exemption has been applied under Rule 6.3.iii.b.
****After the challenge, the Post-Inning Exemption has been revoked.
These are the 33rd and 34th ejections of 2011.
This is the 15th player ejection of 2011.
This is the 17th Manager ejection of 2011.
Prior to his ejection, Uribe was 1-3 in the contest.
Video (1): Uribe and Mattingly tossed by DiMuro
Video (2): Must C Curious: Mattingly, Uribe get tossed
Video (3): Mattingly on his first ejection as manager
19 comments :
Not a catch. You can see it clearly on one of the angles.
@Anonymous, must be a Dodger fan. I still can't tell after watching the replays over and over in HD. One angle makes it look like a catch, another angle makes it look like a trap, the third angle is inconclusive... Isn't there a saying, if you have to look at it more than three times, the call is right?
Not a Dodger fan, I don't have a horse in this race, but how could you look at that second angle and think that was a catch? The turf flies up from where it bounces. Even the Pirates announcers on the other feed thought it was a trap.
Its very hard to tell if it bounced on the turf directly or on the glove which was directly on the turf! And each angle does look different, so the call is at worst inconclusive.
Angle #1 = Catch
Angle #2 = Catch
Angle #3 = Trap
Angle #4 = Inconclusive
If ANY turf is bouncing up, it's bouncing up because the tip of the glove is digging into the ground as a result of the ball impacting on top of it.
Hm... While we wait for Joe West's replay video to show up online, can I just point out that I disagree with the Post-Inning Exemption here. I may be wrong here, but I thought post ining exemptions were for arguments that happen as someone is leaving the field... NOT when he's coming out of the dugout to begin the next inning.
I don't challenge the quality of correctness here (it's absolutely a catch), but I DO CHALLENGE you applying the post inning exemption.
This ruling has been challenged.
After review, the Quality of Correctness has been confirmed. The call is now correct.
After review, the Post-Inning Exemption under Rule 6.3.iii.b. has been revoked. Although the argument was over the catch call in the inning break immediately following the half inning in which the call was made, the Post-Inning Exemption has been revoked. Immediately after DiMuro made the call, Mattingly came out to argue and discuss the call with DiMuro for an extended period, which did not result in ejection. Uribe was not ejected until he came out onto the field for warm ups to argue the call, which had already been argued by Mattingly. Mattingly was not ejected until he came out to argue following the ejection of Uribe. The exemption has been revoked on this basis: Mattingly had already argued the call and the offensive turn for the Dodgers was complete.
Under rule 6.c.x., the reason for ejection is challengable. The reason for ejection has been overturned. The reason for ejection for both Uribe and Mattingly is now Unsporstmanlike-NEC. Under rule 6.b.ii.e., the call is correct.
Overturned.
After watching all the replays, I can't tell if it was a catch or not. DiMuro didn't have the benefit of slow motion replay, so I can't fault him for making the call he did.
But I don't get the attitude some of these umpires have where they'll flat out refuse to ask for help on obvious close plays like this. In a late inning tie game, like in this case, where one play could decide things, I don't know what's so wrong about conferring with your crew-mates to see if maybe someone saw something different, and to be as certain as possible that the correct call was made.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 2B Ump Reynolds would have infield responsibilities on the play so he wouldn't see it. The best bet might have been the Plate, but really, he has the exact same angle, just from 90+ more feet away.
If Reynolds goes out to see this catch/no catch, then there was definitely a mess up on the mechanics on the play. With a runner on first, U2 is on the inside of the dirt. Fly ball to left field, U3 takes this responsibility. U2 has the responsibility at 2nd base, and may have responsibilities at 3rd base for the batter-runner, if U4 has to retreat back to the plate.
Look at the ground angle!!!!! No catch!
The umpires seem to disagree. http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/columns/story?id=6518020 :
Tim Welke, the umpiring crew chief, did tell the pool reporter that the replay appeared to show that DiMuro had missed it.
"It was a very difficult call," Welke said. "It looked like it ended up being a trap into a light glove, a tough play, a close play."
that is not a catch..bad call..recap of game says so to i challenge that ruling
After looking at all of the angles, I see nothing conclusive to overturn the call. While I can understand why DiMuro wouldn't go to his crew for help, maybe a short meeting to placate the manager doesn't hurt anything. Ten or fifteen seconds, "Sorry, no change", maybe that sends Mattingly away. Of course, nothing was going to keep Uribe quiet, so maybe it's a moot point.
There is a "Must C" of this one up now, has both feeds and different angles.
I notice that no one is complaining about Jim Reynolds putting his hands on Juan Uribe to keep him back from Mike DiMuro . . .
I also think that Mattingly should have been tossed for going from DiMuro to Tim Welke. This is baseball, you don't get to run to daddy when you don't get your way.
All, please note this play was already challenged and decisions rendered. Most notably, the Post-Inning Exemption that had been applied was revoked (read Jeremy's post for the reason why). Because the Exemption was revoked, the ejection is classified as Unsportsmanlike-NEC. Under UEFL Rule 6.b.ii.e., Quality of Correctness for all ejections for reasons of Unsportsmanlike-NEC shall be "correct." By rule, there is no Quality of Correctness determination to be made on the initial play, since the eject reason changed to NEC and QoC is automatically correct under NEC. Because of formatting rules regarding challenges, the initial (pre-challenge) QoC and description remain in the post; by Rule 6.b.ii.e., we cannot rule on QoC (since it is now automatically correct), and correspondingly, cannot add a new description of the play.
@Jon Terry, thanks, we'll add the Must C to the post.
Game wrapup from MLB.com reads:
Daily Recap: An umpire's blown call in the top of the eighth inning went against the Dodgers and a tie game turned into a 4-1 loss.
What is Uribe doing? Mattingly clearly doesn't want to get tossed here, after he goes and discusses with DiMuro for a good few minutes, and then Uribe acts a fool and gets tossed about 5 minutes later basically forcing Mattingly to get tossed, too. If Uribe wanted to get tossed, he needs to do it right away. Waiting until the next inning is just weak.
Still not a catch
Post a Comment