This is Gary Darling (27)'s seventh ejection of 2012.
Gary Darling now has 20 points in the UEFL (16 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 20).
Crew Chief Gary Darling now has 10 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (9 Previous + 1 Correct = 10).
UEFL Standings Update
This is the 142nd ejection of 2012.
This is the 60th player ejection of 2012.
This is the Indians' 7th ejection of 2012, T-2nd in the AL Central (DET 9; CLE, CWS, KC 7; MIN 6).
This is Asdrubal Cabrera's first career ejection.
This is Gary Darling's first ejection since August 11 (Carlos Gomez; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: Athletics at Indians, 8/29/12
Video: Cabrera ejected for arguing a called strike in the first inning of the Oakland-Cleveland game (OAK)
Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
Did he throw his mask?
ReplyDeleteOr lose his gum?
ReplyDeleteThat is awfully close. I agree the call is incorrect because if it just crossed his knee at the FRONT of the plate and was dropping rapidly, how could it still be that height as it dropped so quickly? If I was AC, I would just tip my hat to the pitcher for throwing a GREAT pitch (and close, strike or not). I've seen MUCH worse.
ReplyDeleteCabrera and the Indians are frustrated...no more, no less...after Darling let him get away with a line including the words "f***ing bulls***", Cabrera decided to tell Darling that "he sucks." Easy ejection.
ReplyDeleteBucknor just kicked out Bryce Harper for throwing his helmet. CB has been quiet this year but this was not a good ejection- Bryce was throwing his helmet because he was mad at himself
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. I posted a few days ago that Bryce Harper would have an ejection by the end of next season. Looks like it happened a lot sooner ago. I contributed to the UEFL curse!
ReplyDelete"Bucknor just kicked out Bryce Harper for throwing his helmet. CB has been quiet this year but this was not a good ejection- Bryce was throwing his helmet because he was mad at himself "
ReplyDeleteBucknor's head is so far up his posterior, one wonders if he can actually taste his own intestines.
This is not a strike. Ever. You're gonna have an ejection 99.9% of the time calling that a strike, especially on strike 3.
ReplyDeleteMemo to the jacklegs that post on here....throwing your helmet after a close play is demonstrative behavior....automatic ej....get over it....I'm glad the little prick got run
ReplyDeleteDidn't we just finish an appeal about this type of a pitch with the Lance Barrett dual ejection? Pitch f/x shows height is low, replay angle shows it was at the knees, clearly in the zone. The Barrett appeal was reversed from inconclusive to correct, so I see no reason for this call not to be correct either. Looks like the correct ruling to me.
ReplyDeleteWow. Judging from the strike zone map, looks like Cabrera was lucky not to have seen pitch #3 called a strike.
ReplyDeleteThis call is correct read the post it says that Gary correctly ruled this pitch a strike
ReplyDelete@ Anon 7:46
ReplyDeletePitch f/x makes that a strike. It probably would not have been called 9/10 (or more) times years ago. Then again, years ago the zone was the knee not hollow of the knee (right?).
Computers, consistency, data-don't lie, strike.
This shouldn't be called now, and it's not. Bad call here. I don't care what the computer says. This is why computers will never run baseball.
DeleteI agree. If computers weren't a factor, you'd have this as a ball because of how it is received, just like the Lance Barrett pitch that before computers would be a ball all day because of how badly catcher AJ butchered the ball.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see the Cleveland broadcast on this, they probably went nuts
ReplyDelete"The Barrett appeal was reversed from inconclusive to correct, so I see no reason for this call not to be correct either. Looks like the correct ruling to me."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure it was overturned as being *incorrect*, as majority opinion labeled it as a strike unless Gil goofed up. Therefore, Barrett was *incorrect*. It has no bearing on this case, though.
Incorrect call, the pitch was low and below his kneecaps. Asdrubal Cabrera should not have been ejected.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn.t low...just saw the replay...the catcher did butcher the crap out of it though
DeleteYes he definitely should have been ejected anon 10:17. Even if the pitch was incorrectly ruled, which according to pitch fx it wasn't, he said "you f$#@!*% suck" That will get ejected 24/7/365. The magic word and a profanity. It's an automatic.
ReplyDeleteThis is a strike - crossed the front edge of the plate at, or above, the hollow below the knee. And someone sticks their finger in my face like that he's gone too.
ReplyDeleteEven the Cleveland broadcasters, who are normally brutal on the umpires, could see this EJ coming and didn't give Darling a hard time for it. As soon as Cabrera jabbed his finger, one of the broadcasters said, "uh oh!", and a split second later, Cabrera was run.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example that even if machines called the game, you still couldn't satisfy everyone. Are we surprised when humans can't satisfy everyone.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see that pitch, it's a ball and will always be a ball. But if I was an MLB umpire and I knew that a computer was grading my calls I might be prone to call it a strike.
I agree w/ Anon 3:23. While it *might* have just touched a tiny bit of the zone at the front knee, it's still a ball ... regardless of what a computer says. Used to be a ball & should still be one. I won't get this pitch in one of my games. (Then again, I'm not getting graded, either.)
ReplyDeleteIs there any truth to the rumors I've heard where an umpire would not be graded as missing this pitch if he called it a ball? In other words, are there exceptions to the Pitch F/X result based on how it's received, etc.?
Could someone please explain to me how this differs from the A.J. Pierzynski ejection? Both pitches caught the bottom line of the computer zone, catchers both butcher them...ruled a correct strike call on one and inconclusive on another.
ReplyDeleteVery strange....
@ Anon 10:17
ReplyDeleteWhat's your problem?
The system that is used to grade big leaguers would have said "correct call" because he called it a strike. If he called it a ball the pitch wouldn't count for or against him because of "catchers' influence." Supervisors can choose which pitches get "thrown out" for that reason and this definitely would've qualified.
ReplyDelete"This is not a strike. Ever. You're gonna have an ejection 99.9% of the time calling that a strike, especially on strike 3. "
ReplyDeleteEasy to ASSert such a thing when you're watching video (which blows yak nads). The ONLY two people who can see this and accurately call it are Darling and the catcher. Wowzer.
I can explain it....pitch called a strike = correct call. Same pitched called a ball = inconclusive.
ReplyDeleteThis call should be correct and the call on the Pierzynski/Ventura ejection should be incorrect, but if one is inconclusive then they both have to be...
another good pitch butchered by a catcher....darling should've balled it..oh well...write the report....move on
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:27 again: I would be willing to bet that the Pierzynski pitch went against Barrett's game report. The supervisors love guys calling low pitches and since they get to choose which pitches get removed from the game reports due to "catchers' influence", I think they would use the Pierzynski pitch as a pitch you still have to get because where he still caught it within the zone. At least from my experience.
ReplyDeleteDid the glove touch the ground? What a crappy catcher. Move up and catch that pitch with the glove right at the hollow of the knee when it sharply breaks down like that, or at least halfway from the knee to the ground. Pitiful catcher to come very close to losing a great pitch from the pitcher due to laziness with the catching hand on a great pitch. Would not have been given credit for that many times. Go build up his wrists and defensive skills to help his pitchers and not butcher pitches. Maybe he does work as a butcher during the off season.
ReplyDelete