This is Jim Wolf (28)'s first ejection of 2011.
Jim Wolf now has 4 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Jim is owned as a Secondary Umpire by IWU_Titan, who is now tied for 35th place in the UEFL with 1 point.
*This ejection is Eligible for a Balls/Strikes Exemption under Rule 6.e.iv.
^Quality of Correctness was challenged and confirmed ("Correct" ==> "Correct").
This is the 128th ejection of 2011.
This is the 62nd Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Jim Leyland's third ejection of 2011.
Wrap: Tigers at White Sox Wrap 7/25/11
Video: Leyland is tossed by Wolf for arguing balls and strikes
Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
12 comments :
It has been posted in umpire forums that Wolf has been doing his Tim Tschida stance and manuerism Impression on intentional walks... He does not disapoint in this game.... The intentional walk to Konerko in the bottom of the 5th was AWESOME! Moments later Leyland is ejected.... coincidence???
no coincidence
Look at Dunn's at-bat...there were close pitches called balls.
is there a plot for the pitch shown in the video before the ejection...that pitch looked pretty close to being a strike!
I was watching this game. Leyland was ejected between the fifth and sixth innings, most likely for arguing what he thought should have been a called third strike on Dunn by Tigers starting pitcher Below. Dunn eventually walked to load the bases and the next batter hit a double off Ruffin to score two runs. Rios' pop-up was the third out of the fifth inning.
Contrary to my (and the game commentators') assumption (above) that it was a pitch to Dunn that upset Leyland, it turns out (according to MLB's posted account) that It was actually a called ball three on Ramirez about which Leyland was expressing his opinion between innings. Following that pitch, one which Leyland said had been considered a strike by HP umpire Wolf prior to that, Ramiraz hit the game-tying single. In the post-game interview, Leyland was actually quite complimentary about Wolf and admitted that, although he felt the ejection was kind of quick, he knew he could not argue balls and strikes.
Based on the Ball/Strikes exemption I CHALLANGE this rulling
@ anon 10:12... Very true and well said.
This ruling has been challenged and is under review.
(As Anonymous 12:31 PM alluded to, posts flagged "Eligible for Balls/Strikes Exemption" must be challenged for such exemption to be applied and for other at bats to be considered [UEFL Rule 6.e.iv.].)
This is going to be another example of the fantasy league rules preventing a valid examination of the quality of correctness of a particular call.
Leyland was arguing because of the ball 3 call to Ramirez. Not that it wasn't particularly a ball, but that he wanted the umpire to "give us that call as well" due to a strike call earlier in the game against the Tigers.
what is this about Jim doing a Tim T impression and stance? point me to a video or a thread link please!
jdbr78
This ruling has been challenged.
After review, the Quality of Correctness has been confirmed. The call is now correct.
After review, including examination of the real-time play, replays, and alternate angles, the decision of confirming the original Quality of Correctness was made. Upon applying a Balls/Strikes Exemption under Rule 6.e.iv., the following observations were made regarding the bottom of the 5th inning:
Called Balls: 8
Correctly Called Balls: 8
Called Strikes: 5
Correctly Called Strikes: 5
Unactionable (borderline verticality, call is correct, but not used in analysis): 1
Cumulative Accuracy: 100% (13/13)
Dunn at bat Accuracy: 100% (5/5)
Ramirez at bat Accuracy: 100% (4/4)
Because Wolf carried a balls/strikes accuracy rating of 100% in the bottom of the 5th inning, Quality of Correctness must be correct.
Denied.
Post a Comment