This is Jerry Layne (24)'s fourth ejection of 2011.
Jerry Layne now has 5 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (2 Previous + 2 MLB + -2 Incorrect Call [Crewmate] = 2)
Jerry Layne is owned as a Primary Umpire by 15_and_done, who is now tied for 23rd place in the UEFL with 6 points.
Jerry Layne is owned as a Secondary Umpire by KTurner14, who is now tied for 32nd place in the UEFL with 2 points.
*This play does not invoke Rule 6.05(f), which states that a batter is out when he attempts to hit a third strike and the ball touches him.
**Quality of Correctness was challenged and confirmed ("Incorrect" ==> "Incorrect").
This is the 131st ejection of 2011.
This is the 64th Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Jim Leyland's fourth ejection of 2011.
This is Jim Leyland's 60th career ejection.
Wrap: Angels @ Tigers 7/28/11
Video: Leyland is ejected for the second time in three days
This is the 131st ejection of 2011.
This is the 64th Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Jim Leyland's fourth ejection of 2011.
This is Jim Leyland's 60th career ejection.
Wrap: Angels @ Tigers 7/28/11
Video: Leyland is ejected for the second time in three days
20 comments :
I looked at the replay in slow motion and could not see the ball contact his hand. I also listened to the audio several times and sounded like a foul ball. Also, the batter's reaction was not indicitive of being hit. I would say that this call was correct. Leyland is one of those that would argue with a brick wall.
Challenge.
The best angle is at 1:04 and, at best, looks like it's inconclusive about whether the ball hit the hands or hit the butt of the bat.
The batter should've sold it better. And in any case its a pretty tough call on this one in my opinion. I hate those. After watching the umpires eyes, he tracked the ball perfectly.
Whether or not the ball struck his hand, leland went back to the dugout. He sat down and let the game continue but was immediately ejected, without even realizing he said anything. Should be ruled incorrect just for that. Let them play
This ruling has been challenged and is under review.
Anonymous (5:04 PM), please note the issue at hand is the corresponding call to the ejection. As with the statement of purpose of the UEFL, our job is to analyze (objectively) whether or not the call was correct. While it is fair to discuss whether an umpire has a quick hook or not, that is not our purpose. We don't have the benefit of seeing what exactly was being said from the dugout or the field, if there was demonstrative behavior or language.
I agree with the Challenge. I would argue inconclusive at best.
@ Anonymous 5:04PM
Leyland left the dugout to argue a strike (foul) call... by rule, he should have been immediately ejected for leaving the dugout to argue balls and strikes. He also did not let the game continue. He went back to the dugout and continued to bark at the umpires. He's turning into real tool. I hope he gets run from every game he's in. He's old, cranky and it's time for him to retire.
Hey just wanted a smoke break.
To me, at 1:04, it looks like its off the hands. But based on the batter's reaction, I definitely would have called a foul ball as well. Could he have pulled an Angel Hernandez and looked at Jackson's hand for any ball marks??
@ Anonymous 6:29PM
No, he didn't "leave the dugout to argue balls and strikes." The count on Jackson was already 3-2, so the foul ball didn't result in an additional strike. And since the ball obviously hit _something_, there is no question about it being ball four.
Even if it did result in a strike, that's still not arguing balls and strikes--that's arguing a call that resulted in a strike, which is a different thing entirely. Otherwise, every disputed fair/foul call would be "arguing balls and strikes".
I didn't see the game, and the video clip doesn't make it clear what he was doing in the dugout to get dumped, but I agree he was probably still woofing at either Knight or Layne. Leyland has been around long enough that if he wants to get tossed, he knows what to do.
Rule 2.00:
A BALL is a pitch which does not enter the strike zone in flight and is not struck at by the batter.
A hit by pitch, for statistical purposes, shall be considered a BALL. So he's arguing at least half of it - he's arguing ball vs. foul ball.
Rule 9.01(d): Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field. If an umpire disqualifies a player while a play is in progress, the disqualification shall not take effect until no further action is possible in that play.
Rule 9.02(a): Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.
He objected to the judgement call, that gives the umpire the right to invoke Rule 9.01(d). Who cares about balls/strikes. All that Rule 9.02(a) Comment (balls/strikes provision) does is mandates an ejection for arguing balls and strikes.
if leyland was going to say something to get himself intentionally thrown out of the game he would have left it all out there on the field, He wouldn't go back to the dugout, sit down and then get tossed.
Why did Lelyand leave right after being ejected? Huh? Answer that question, and you'll know if it's a good ejection.
This ruling has been challenged.
After review, the Quality of Correctness has been confirmed. The call is now incorrect.
After review, including examination of the real-time play, replays, and alternate angles, the decision of confirming the original Quality of Correctness was made. Using the multiple angles available, including the front angle view from behind the pitcher's shoulder, it is evident at the 1:04 mark that Jackson was hit in the hand by the pitch. The still frame as the ball hits the area in question, and the still frame immediately after contact can be seen here.
Denied.
That picture proves literally nothing at all. The replays are at best inconclusive. Bad call guys
i think the point is that there is no way it could have it the bat based on the trajectory of the ball into and off of the batter...his hands were touching and so it must have hit them
First of all.
It is arguing balls and strikes.
Secondly. The replays are inconclusive at best.
Looks like the laws of physics trump all.
I agree that this could be no more than inconclusive. No way you can call this correct.
Post a Comment