This is Sam Holbrook (34)'s fourth ejection of 2011.
Sam Holbrook now has 16 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (12 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 16).
Sam Holbrook is owned as a Secondary Umpire by HIGHSCHOOLUMP, who is now tied for 20th place in the UEFL with 14 points.
*A Post-Inning Exemption is only allowed during the inning break immediately concluding the half inning in which the call in question was made.
**This call is correct under UEFL Rule 6.b.ii.e.
^Quality of Correctness was challenged and summarily confirmed ("Correct" ==> "Correct").
~Reason for Ejection was challenged and summarily upheld ("Unsportsmanlike-NEC" ==> "Unsportsmanlike-NEC").
^Quality of Correctness was challenged and summarily confirmed ("Correct" ==> "Correct").
~Reason for Ejection was challenged and summarily upheld ("Unsportsmanlike-NEC" ==> "Unsportsmanlike-NEC").
This is the 188th ejection of 2011.
This is the 91st Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Sam Holbrook's third ejection with Joe West's crew.
This is Clint Hurdle's fifth ejection of 2011.
This is the 25th ejection by Joe West's crew.
This is Sam Holbrook's third ejection with Joe West's crew.
This is Clint Hurdle's fifth ejection of 2011.
This is the 25th ejection by Joe West's crew.
15 comments :
Of course MLB's video doesn't include a replay of the timing. I hope you guys have MLB.tv...
Watching this on MLB.TV, this was a terrible call by Holbrook. He wasn't even looking at the runner he was looking at the fly ball. Both the Pirates and Cardinals announcers agree this was a blown call.
I am now going to Challenge the reason for ejection as well as quality of correctness, How in the hell can you call the reason for ejection unsportsmanlike conduct? What else could he be arguing. You really need to ammend those rules for non balls and strikes ejections because sometimes, like in this instance, it is obvious what the manager is arguing. It is also very obvious the call is a bad one, yet you reward the umpire for it.
What made him go back out, did he see the replay in the clubhouse, or did Holbrook say something?
This ruling has been challenged; due to previously established rules and challenge precedent, this challenge may be summarily ruled upon.
After summary review, Quality of Correctness has been confirmed. The call is still "correct." Reason for Ejection has been upheld. The Reason for Ejection is still "Unsportsmanlike-NEC."
The following is the UEFL's rule as it relates to delayed ejections (ejections which occur several outs or half innings after a play) and repeat visit ejections (ejections which occur during a Manager or player's second [or subsequent] visit out to an umpire to argue the same call).
Delayed Ejections: Under Rule 6.e.ii., Quality of Correctness ordinarily only applies to the call made directly prior to ejection. Rule 6.e.iii.b. allows for the Post-Inning Exemption if the ejection occurs during a natural break in play (such as an in-between inning break or interval), where the ejection is undoubtedly for this one specific call. In this instance, the Manager first argued this play with the calling umpire immediately after the play and call occurred. Had he been ejected at this point, the Quality of Correctness would have been incorrect, as the call appeared to be incorrect.
Repeat Visit Ejections: The Umpire Ejection Fantasy League has routinely ruled that a Manager or player may not be credited with an arguable ejection if he has already been out to argue the call with the umpire once before, has not been ejected during that first argument, and is ejected during the second or subsequent argument. In simple terms, the Manager or player is considered ejected under the purview of Unsportsmanlike-NEC (Rule 6.b.ii.e.) if he goes out to argue a first time and is not ejected, and is subsequently ejected during the second (or subsequent) ejection while arguing that play for a second (or third, fourth, etc.) time. The UEFL recognizes a Manager or player may argue a call, but if the first on-field argument has proved fruitless, the Manager or player is considered ejected for the reason of Unsportsmanlike-NEC under Rule 6.b.ii.e when he is ejected during the second, third, etc. argument. This is referred to as the DiMuro Rule.
Summarily Denied.
@Anon 12:20AM, the announcers speculated that he went in the clubhouse between innings and looked at the replay. That was probably it, Holbrook didn't appear to be looking into the dugout after the first time Hurdle had come out.
@11.55pm Of course Holbrook isn't looking at the runner, he has to know when the ball is touched doesn't he?
@September 13, 2011 11:55 PM
Relax tough guy. You are obviously new to the site. If your not new, then your way out of line for a number of reasons. While I do not speak for Gil, or any moderator on the UEFL, I do understand how and why the DiMurro rule is in effect.
1st of all you may be 100% correct in your analysis that Hurdle was arguing the timing play. However, Hurdle knows he cannot come back onto the field and start the same argument again. And because what is said cannot be confirmed EXACTLY, Hurdle could (I say could) be saying something entirely different from the previous trip. And in fairness to the UEFL members, which I am not, this entire area of grayness is considered the DiMurro Rule. I think this is the most fair way to deal with this type of unknown.
As an example, Hurdle could have easily said, on the second trip, "Sam, you missed it, but your partner on the dish has really screwed us worse tonite".
I think the reverse is true more often than not. A manager, after seeing a replay in the clubhouse, may take the opportunity on the next fairly close play to argue, not about the play that just happened, but a previous play. So when we see, on this site, a manager getting ejected, and the umpire is deemed to be correct, he really may not be correct because the manager wasn't even arguing the play that happened 10 seconds earlier.
See?
There's really no way to tell what is said at any given point in the game.
no brainer EJ...coach makes any type of reference to instant replay from the bench/clubhouse - especially in this case where he actually came back onto the field . Hurdle knew he was going to get the hook - he probably figured it was worth it just to let Holbrook know that he was wrong. Typical rat :( Hey, I got a great idea, how about instant replay Hurdle ;)
There's a video of Hurdle talking to the press and he says that the reason he went back out was because he (or someone else) saw the replay and confirmed that it was an incorrect call. He said he had to go out there for his player and couldn't let the "kid" (Ciriaco) wear it because it wasn't his mistake, it was Holbrook's. Don't have the link with me on my iPod but if you search the MLB.com videos for "Hurdle ejection" you should be able to find it.
Gil,
I think there can be discretion on your behalf in determining what the cause of the ejection was.
Clearly, the post-game wrap, which you link on your post-game, indicates that Hurdle went to argue after being told Sam missed the call.
I think if we are to objectively track objections and award points on correction, I think the UEFL league commisioner should be allowed to go back and determine the call that the ejectee is obviously protesting.
Call it the Hurdle Rule or the Holbrook Rule. But I think the DiMuro Rule leaves too little room for interpretation by the UEFL League Commissioner for obvious situtions like this one.
I think overturning the Dimuro Rule and also lowering the number of points for "Beanball" ejections will make a good idea into a truly great fantasy league.
Thats my two cents
JRD
I'm anonymous 11:55,
I was not arguing the ejection. I know if you come out half an inning later and argue a call you are going to get run, I am arguing the Dimuro rule in general. I love this site and usually side with th umpires, but Holbrook got this call wrong, plain and simple. I am not even in the UEFL, so I don't care about Holbrook's points.
I agree with JRD, that the Dimuro rule is not a good one. Like he said, you cannot interperet obvious calls and Holbrook gets positive points when in reality he makes an incorrect call. I think it is different when you are arguing with a base ump compared to a HP ump. There would have been no other reason for Hurdle to talk with Holbrook.
These are two ejections that could fall in the same category as this Holbrook one.
May 8: Andy Fletcher- Yorvit Torrealba
May 9:Mike Dimuro- Don Mattingly and Juan Uribe
In those three cases it is obvious what they are arguing and the reason for ejection should be what the original call was. I am not arguing these ejections shouldn't happen, I'm just saying we can infer the reason based on a call they made earlier in the game. There would be no reason for a catcher (Torrealba) to argue with a 1B Umpire after flying out. Juan Uribe was at-bat when 3B Ump Mike Dimuro made his call of a catch when Uribe thought it was a trap. Why else would Uribe be arguing an inning later with 3B ump Dimuro?
Couldn't we in reality say every ejection is Unsportsmanlike conduct. We are not on the field, so we cannot actually confirm what is being argued about. But we imply based on what happened the previous play or at-bat.
@5:53, If he is not looking at the play then he shouldn't make the call.
@ 10.55am - I bet you any money that Holbrook was lined up watching the tag and the catch at the same time.
The DiMuro Rule is in effect to prevent a dangerous precedent from being established, which is the lifting of a statute of limitations, of sorts, concerning how long after a call is made may it be argued AND how many visits a Manager/Coach/player may make to argue a call. The core principle is that only one visit is allowed; a second visit several outs later when the play has been over with for quite some time is not productive nor purposeful as far as game activity is concerned. The Manager/player has already visited once and said his peace; now, during his second visit several outs later, he is out there only to rehash the argument and berate the umpire... where do we draw the line, if at all? How many times are Managers/Coaches/players allowed to argue the same call and still receive the routine QOC ruling?
Every ejection is indeed Unsportsmanlike Conduct. The "Reason for Ejection" for many ejections might fully read, "Unsportsmanlike Conduct-Balls and Strikes." Unsportsmanlike-NEC is simply Unsportsmanlike-Not Elsewhere Classified. Multiple/Repeat Visit ejections, as specified by the DiMuro rule, fall under Unsportsmanlike-NEC.
As it relates to the points attributed to ejections for Unsportsmanlike-NEC, fighting, and throwing at, the idea of going back to a 2 + 0 (or 3 + 0 for AAA) model has been brought up. We started crediting the Rule 6.b.ii.e. ejections with Correct: 2+2 points status in 2010, depending on the outcome of the Rules Summit after the season, we might go back to a 2+0 points structure for those ejections. We'll certainly also discuss the DiMuro Rule at that time and see what changes we can make to it.
I really like the discussion going on. My take on it is, every ejection is warranted because of the action of the playercoach/manager. So, by evaluating the ejection you are evaluating the call. I do believe common sense should play a role in these decisions and Hurdle was clearly arguing the miss tag up call. After seeing ESPN's coverage, Holbrook clearly was not lined up to see both the tag and runner tagging. He was fooled by the upper body moving while the foot was still on the base. He guessed.....and unfortunately guessed wrong.
Statute of limitations for argument is an interesting concept. In the officiating world, it's well known that as a coach you simply cannot bring up previous plays. Coaches will argue calls. That's the game. But after that argument is over, the issue should be closed. If the coach returns to the field to argue that same call a second time after another half inning has passed, the ejection is automatic. You're not ejecting the coach for arguing that play any more, you're ejecting the coach for arguing a previous call in the game, which is simply not allowed under any circumstance.
I think this is a good call. Auto ejections such as intentional beanballs and arguing previously argued plays should always be considered correct, for that's just a no brainer as far as ejecting is concerned. Should they have the same points as the routine ball/strike ejections is another story, I'm still conflicted.
Post a Comment