HP Umpire James Hoye ejected Angels Manager Mike Scioscia for arguing a safe call in the bottom of the 6th inning of the Angels-Blue Jays game. With
none out and three on, Blue Jays batter Jose Bautista reached on a force attempt, fielding error by Angels second baseman Howard
Kendrick. Blue Jays R3 Omar Vizquel scored. R2 Brett Lawrie scored. R1 Colby
Rasmus to 3rd. Jose Bautista to 2nd. Replays indicate that
as Lawrie went into the plate he collided with Angels catcher John Hester. Lawrie collided into Hester's forearm at the plate, but while in continued contact, Hester contacted Lawrie's shoulder with his bottom portion and base of the glove with the ball inside prior to Lawrie touching home plate (Hoye signaled safe, and then safe again when Lawrie retouched home plate prior to once again being tagged by Hester), the call was incorrect. After review, QOC has been reversed. The call is now correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Angels were leading, 3-2. The Angels ultimately won the contest, 10-6.
This is James Hoye (92)'s second ejection of 2012.
James Hoye now has 6 points in the UEFL (2 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 6).
Crew Chief Tom Hallion now has 2 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (1 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 2).
*After review, Quality of Correctness has been reversed by the UEFL Appeals Board (4-2).
*Historical Appeals Board decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.*
UEFL Standings Update
This is the 81st ejection of 2012.
This is the 41st Manager ejection of 2012.
This is Mike Scioscia's third ejection of 2012.
This is Mike Scioscia's first ejection since June 24 (Dan Iassogna; QOC = Correct).
This is James Hoye's first ejection since May 19 (Bob Melvin; QOC = Irrecusable).
This is the Angels' third ejection of 2012, tied for second in the AL West (OAK 4; TEX 3; SEA 0).
Wrap: Angels at Blue Jays 7/1/12 (Canada Day)
Video: Error leads to collision at the plate between Lawrie, Hester; Scioscia tossed by Hoye
Video: Angels broadcasters determine Hoye has had "atrocious afternoon" after close call at plate
Related: Changed strike three call by Eric Cooper negates double play, results in Bobby Cox's ejection (2009)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
65 comments :
How about that. Two incorrect safe calls on one play.
I watched it from 4 angles fram by frame on my HD big screen TV. He was safe, it was Hester's wrist, never the glove that was on Lawrie
and in reply to the first comment here, he was obviously safe when Lawrie went back to the plate
http://s157.photobucket.com/albums/t59/tmlms13/?action=view¤t=IMG-20120701-00075.jpg
@ anon 2:51 im anon 2:40 and my bad i meant to say Scioscia thought there were 2 incorrect calls on the play
Hoye really butchered this call, but the real travesty here are the blue jay unis. Ouch
Well young umpires this is everything wrong to do on one play.... We call this the deer in the headlights.... usually made by minor league umpires not MLB full-time guys..... what a disaster...
Lets start from moving the bat.... He never looked like he was ready to make a call then a soft sell of a call with this much happening is gross. Some of the toughest calls to make are when a runner is doing something you do not expect.... so a play where there is an attmpted tag in addition to a runner adjesting to touch home is especially tough... but sell something even if it's wrong.
I challenge. I believe that he was never contacted with glove. Hester's arm makes contact with the shoulder but no tag was ever applied. If their is video evidence, I would like to see it.
I have heard some veteran umpires say, "expect a disaster" anytime there is a play at the plate. Now, I see what they mean.
I love the actual ejection because you can tell Hoye did not want to throw him out.
Anon 2:57, This is Canada Day, they are wearing special jerseys they wear one a year. Notice how all the jersey's say Canada not the players names?
I actually get excited to see the Canada Day uniforms...
I have to say that, in real time, I don't see a tag. Lawrie runs into the catcher's arm as he goes through, but he doesn't seem to touch the glove, and the catcher certainly doesn't touch him. In real time, I think Hoye got this right.
From watching it full speed, I don't see how anyone could even think about saying there was a tag. James Hoye got the call right and handled an angry Scioscia very well. Good job by my favorite umpire!
Looks like he tagged him with his elbow. I don't think that counts.
Didn't think he was safe until he touched the plate on the second time around. Looked like a botched signal from Hoye on the first time around, but looked like he got the call right to me.
Let me qualify what I said earlier about Hoye doing a good job. He did mess up in signaling twice. He didn't handle it perfectly. However, he let Scioscia go for longer than most would and he ultimately got the call correct.
When will the all-star umps be announced? Also, who do we think will get a nod?
My crew:
CC/HP Tim Tschida (previously appeared in 1992 and 2002)
1B Jim Joyce (1994, 2001)
2B Wally Bell (1997, 2000)
3B Tony Randazzo (2001)
LF Alfonso Márquez (2006)
RF Adrian Johnson (first appearance)
Even if he missed the tag, I've never seen an umpire ask for one when the catcher gets run over. If you hold on to the ball, runner is out
@Anon 6:49: Funny, I have the rulebook right here. Nowhere in 7.08 does it say "In sliding for home base, he makes contact with the catcher and the catcher does not drop the ball."
@bapacop. I didn't say it was a rule, I said its never called that way. A neighborhood play at second isn't in the rules either, yet every umpire gives an out.
My interpretation of this AP Photo: Ball secured inside mitt. Heel of the mitt (near wrist) touching the left shoulder. Another angle show something conclusively different?
http://espn.go.com/mlb/photos?gameId=320701114&photoId=2186787#photo_2186787
Angels feed.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22761535&query=%26game_pk%3D318902
Horrible announcing BTW.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/zoneplot.php-pitchSel=all&game=gid_2012_07_01_anamlb_tormlb_1&sp_type=1&s_type=7.gif
Hoye's plot
The call was correct. If you look frame by frame of the official major league baseball video of the run scoring, you will see that at the time of the collision, there was no tag. At the 13 second part of the video, that is the only time that there is tag applied to Lawrie but you will see that the tip of his toe is toucing home plate. The summary needs to be chnage to that the call was correct.
It was a good call. You can't just automatically call a runner out because the ball beat him there. Lawrie ran into the wrist of the Angel's catcher but in the video, there is a clear gap/daylight meaning that the cather didn't tag him when they collided. There was no tag on the shoulder. There is a tag a split second later on Lawrie's back but Lawrie's left toe is touching the front of home plate. You will have to try multiple times to get the video frozen on the correct frame. The tag and touch of home plate happen before Lawrie's knees even hit the ground. Everyone who watched this thought that Lawrie was out. But Hoye got the call right. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_07_01_anamlb_tormlb_1&mode=gameday&c_id=tor
To clarify above, Lawrie running into the catcher's wrist is not a tag. For there to be a tag,the catcher's glove (if the ball is it in it, must tag the runner. By the time, catcher does tag runner, runner had already touched plate safely. If there was instant replay available to umpires, this call would have been upheld as correct.
The only thing Hoye got wrong here is a premature safe call. Lawrie wasnt safe until he touched the plate after the collision. I watched it about 10 times now and I still think he is safe.
@Russ: That link is a home run highlight.
Here's the Angels feed link: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22769485
@Anon 7:16: Apologies for the misinterpretation, then. I read it as a simple statement, like "If the runner is tagged before he touches the plate, he's out."
I actually don't think I've ever seen a play in which the catcher was run over and didn't make a tag... Until now, that is.
I could care less about the umpires close call. How does a 4.8 million dollar player boot an easy double play ground ball like that? No boot, no problem. Then, how does a 5 mil shortstop make such a horsemanure throw to the plate when he has all day for the throw. Great call to get run on no matter which way the call goes for either manager.
Like a previous person explained...he probably got the call right but even if it was wrong he needs to throw a strong "safe" call out instead of the 2 limped arm safe calls he did show. It didn't look like he was confident in his call and the manager pounced. He did not want to toss him over that. He let him argue his point for a long time until he realized Mike didn't want to go back in the dugout.
when collision happens:
No tag: http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/5647/screenhunter02jul012347.gif
video from Toronto Blue Jays page examined frame by frame, no tag until tag on back happened here but left foot is touching home plate: http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1746/screenhunter01jul012347.gif
(will try to get a better pic of toe on plate
I've watched a number of replays frame by frame. (in HD TV) Lawrie's left foot does not touch the plate, it is in the air going over it. However, his right foot trailing touches the plate.
Imo the correct call is no tag, and safe originally on his right foot.
You could also argue that there was no tag and he didn't touch the plate but was safe getting back to it anyways.
Here are better pictures...
Frozen at collision (no tag): http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1323/p7010310.jpg
Tag on back (happens next) but front of Lawrie left toe touch front of plate - evidence is something dark (darker than the shadows) is making contact with the plate which could only be the front of his shoe. You can verify this with the Toronto-based video feed of this game and you will see that "mysterious" dark object (that can only be the runner's toe) touch the plate. This key frame happens after the collision but before Lawrie's knees make contact with the ground.
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/5024/p7010311.jpg
Tag on shoulder (happens last after Lawrie falls to knees) but even then, Lawrie's knee is on top of the plate. http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5287/p7010309.jpg
That would be irrelevant because he was already tagged on back in previous freeze frame but as said above, the tag on back was too late.
Sorry moderator, but the call was correct until someone can show a tag (any tag) that happened before Lawrie touched home. As it stands both tag occurances happened and are frozen on pictures where Lawrie was already touching the plate (although only the first tag on his back matters). Lawrie coming back to home plate after going past was actually the 3 time he touched home.
He was safe the first time around. He made a second safe mechanic because the runner and catcher both went back to the plate. So the second potential out here is not even in question. Looked safe to me in real time.
I've noticed there is a lack of really good sitcoms on network TV and would suggest the people writing on here (3 or 4) apply for those positions....
As for the umpires i have a question: Lets say there is no tag... Do you think Hoye was/is good enough to see the wrist tagged him but not the glove?
If you answered Yes.. then why did he miss 25+ pitches?
If you answered no.... then he's out all day... if you don't understand that.. then you don't get professional baseball
Ok master instructor of "young umpires". It was a goofy, ugly play...and that almost always creates problems for umpires. He took his time, ptocessed everything slowly and made the call he felt was right. Good job in my opinion.
Challenge
There was no tag there. This needs to be overturned.
This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
@Tmac
No doubt that Hoye butchered this, but he got lucky with a 50/50 chance and got the call correct (whether the call was "right" or not is a whole other debate).
Based upon the evidence provided, I just don't see how this can conclusively be an incorrect call.
Saw the highlights on MLBN. I wonder if Scioscia gets run if not for another questionable call in the fourth where Hoye appeared to call a strike, then changed the call to a ball giving Edwin Encarnacion a walk. Unfortunately, I can't find those highlights online but there are a couple of articles out there.
@anon 6:17...that situation that brought scioscia out in the 4th: the pitch did look like a ball (never saw a plot), but hoye raised his arm and appeared to vocalize strike, but never extended his fingers...after his arms went up, he made a safe sign, i guess indicating no strike. it was a pretty ugly call. tom hallion had to come down from first to get rid of scoscia...hallion actually did a very good job in both cases getting in a taking care of hoye.
I think that the Angels announcers will find that they will do a much better job when they actually use their eyes. It was bad enough that the play-by-play guy totally blew the call in real time, but to miss it again after watching the replay is totally unprofessional. In other words, somebody was atrocious and it wasn't Hoye.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22771679
that steball is about at 6:00
Wow, that bad mechanic definately put the Angels in a foul mood, and rightly so.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation_io.php-pitchSel=450351&game=gid_2012_07_01_anamlb_tormlb_1&batterX=27&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif
Rough call, it sure looked like the glove touched him. Out.
@ Anon 10:51
Where did it touch him? I have yet to see it.
This crew is slowly entering the bottom tier of umpiring crews this year.
this crew has had some bad showings...but hallion showed he can step it up when backing hoye at multiple points yesterday
@Pete: I didn't see the game, however,that Brooks baseball plots in general do not take "Catcher's Influence" into consideration... which is a criteria that is backed out of their quest-tec score after the game. Just something to keep in mind...
@12:02,
True, however, looking at Brooks baseball plot for the entire game, Hoye was all over the place -- both for Toronto and Anaheim. Whenever you start a strike mechanic and a strike verbalization on a close pitch then change your mind it is going to cause the opposing manager to come out of the dugout and ask "what was that pitch?"
This certainly contributed to Mike's meltdown on the play at the plate. I'll give Hoye credit though, he let Mike blow off a lot of steam before he finally tossed him. Hallion doesn't waste any time to get to the argument area -- a lesson for some other crew chiefs out there.
This is actually Jim Joyce's crew. He was taking his mandatory week off and they decided to bring in Hallion to be the Crew Chief instead of calling up a Triple A guy. This crew was very quiet for most of the year and then when Joyce is off they have 2 ejections. Funny how that works. I would not rank this crew towards the bottom yet though, Joyce and Reynolds are both excellent, Hoye had a bad day yesterday but is usually pretty solid (he made the playoffs in only his second season on the full time staff, that is very impressive. I have never really thought Dimuro was that great of an Umpire, he always seems unsure of himself on calls, has a very big strikezone (too big IMO)and has only worked the Playoffs twice in 12 seasons. Not a god week for the crew, but though I still say Hoye got the call right. Usually, if a runner railroads a catcher as long as the catcher hangs on to the ball the runner will be out. But I don't like that unwritten rule at all. There has to be a tag somewhere and I am failing to see one in any video I have watched. As far as this crew's performance, I have confidence they will get back on their feet with Joyce returning. Not that Tom Hallion is bad at all because he is easily one of the best in the game right now and did a great job sticking up for his former crewmmate from last year Hoye, but sometimes Umpires might be more used to a certain CC they have seen all season running the show.
Check this at the 11 minute mark, another collision at the plate, a clear no tag on the plate, Hoye rules an out.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22771679
Video on that.
I'm going to be a little more civil than anon 8:21 but agree with him at the same time, I am definetely seeing a tag by Hester here. I don't understand the witchh unt against Hoye. He had a bad day, happens to everybody.
i don't see a tag there.... and hoye is a great dude.... a guy to root for and an excellent umpire.... But he just had a bad day... I think what we are seeing here is that some people will rule in favor of the umpire no matter what side the call is on.... It's an excellent point... There's just one problem... When you're on the field there needs to be accountability... it's the major factor that all levels of umpires need to have.... There is a definite lack of it on many levels and with some posters. To the people who are fans of umpires and don't take the field!! Greats thanks and no matter what happens keep rooting for the umpires!! But to the umpires professinal and amateurs who make this look like a republican/democrat debate... be better then that!!
In this video...
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=22771679
The eleven-minute mark play...
Someone tell me if I'm seeing things. Watch the runner's left hand. It appears to make contact with the catcher's glove, as it seems to be being pushed backwards by something in the replay at about 10:58. That looks like a tag there, to me.
After review, the Original Ruling has been reversed in a 4-2 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Four Appeals Board members elected to Overturn the Original Ruling and two voted to Uphold it.
Per Curiam Opinion:
In establishing the accuracy of this play, the Board considers the definition of 2.00 TAG [abridged]: "the action of a fielder in touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove." Rule 2.00 TOUCH specifies the object of the action may be touched "on any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment."
In reviewing this play, the Board rejects the argument that the catcher's contact with the runner is a legal tag; After review, the Board has determined the catcher's glove did not touch any part of the runner prior to the runner touching home plate.
Concurring Opinion, RichMSN, Joined by Albertaumpire:
the call by the umpire (not the UEFL commissioner) is correct until it's proven to me (not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but somewhere close to that) otherwise. That's always my approach, though. If it's not conclusive that a tag was applied, if it's not conclusive that the plate was missed...then I'll probably vote to overturn the call even though it seems like the more dramatic result -- only because it upholds an inconclusive call by the original calling official. I think that's only fair to the ML umpire who had to make this call in real time.
I've watched this from every angle multiple times and am not convinced there's a tag nor convinced that a plate was missed that led to a missed (in the end) call. Overturn.
Dissenting Opiniong, tmac:
i have watched multiple angles numerous times and am fairly certain a piece of the glove contacts the runner before he touches home plate... I am not 100% therefore i am upholding the call of incorrect. I have no conclusive evidence that the runner touched home . And anything that happened after the safe call is irrelevant. You can see Hoye saying his foot touched the plate. If he was looking at his foot from that close would have been mighty hard to see the tag (try looking at the bag and seeing a tag on a swipe play at 1st).
Dissenting Opinion, Gil:
Under the auspices of UEFL Rule 6-5-a, "In the event that a play under appeal can be conclusively categorized or adjudged as Correct/Incorrect as a result of this action, through the use of conclusive and/or clear and/or convincing evidence, the appeal shall be either Upheld or Denied." 6-5-b specifies deferral if evidence is not conclusive, clear and/or convincing.
By this standard, the Original Ruling should be upheld by virtue of convincing—yet not conclusive—evidence to suggest a legal tag. OBR Rule 1.12 specifies the bounds of a catcher's mitt, furthermore declaring such a mitt "shall include all lacing and any leather band or facing attached to the outer edge of the mitt"; therefore, the question of contact with glove lacing or bands is put to rest—it is a legal tag. Used interchangeably with "glove" for the purposes of Rule 2.00 TAG, this photograph appears to indicate a legal tag before the runner has touched home plate.
A tag is not an "intent" play, nor is it subject to any criteria save for the aforemention Rules 2.00, 1.12 and, in this case, 7.08(b). After review, Rule 2.00 TAG has been satisfied, evidence suggests satisfaction preceeded the runner's touch of home plate and ergo, a correctly ruled Original QOC.
Therefore, the Board reverses the Original Ruling.
Confirmed: None
Upheld: Gil, tmac
Overturned: Albertaumpire, BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag
Deferred: None
Abstained: Jeremy (Posted Original Ruling)
The Original Ruling has been reversed, 4-2.
I applaud the decision, and the explanatory opinions.
I still maintain that a catcher can't be expected to tag the runner if he is taken out. If you hit the catcher, you are forfeiting your right to require a tag. That's how it's always been. At least half of the times a catcher is trucked at the plate and gets an out, there is no tag
Excellent to see the opinions related to the decisions; sound reasoning behind both sides.
Can we update the points on the original post.
Post a Comment