HP Umpire Lance Barrett ejected White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski and Manager Robin Ventura for arguing a ball call in the top of the 3rd inning of the Mariners-White Sox game. With one out and none on, Mariners batter Justin Smoak took a 0-0 fastball from White Sox pitcher Jose Quintana for a called ball. Replays indicate the pitch was located around hollow-of-knee high and over the outer half of home plate (sz_bot of 1.69 and pz of 1.693, norm_ht of -.997), the call was inconclusive.* The call is now incorrect.^ At the time of the ejections, the Mariners were leading, 3-1. The White Sox ultimately won the contest, 5-4.
These are Lance Barrett (94)'s fourth and fifth ejections of 2012.
Lance Barrett now has 7 points in the UEFL (1 Previous + 2*[3 AAA + 0 Inconclusive Call] = 7).
Crew Chief Jim Joyce now has 6 points in the UEFL's crew division (4 Previous + 2*[1 Inconclusive] = 6).
*QOC is not Incorrect pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-2, the Miller Rule. Because the lower bound of the zone for this pitch was 1.69 feet and the pitch was located at a height of 1.693 feet, zone height (sz_bot) does not provide enough significant digits to conclusively state whether the call was correct or not.
^Quality of Correctness was reversed by the UEFL Appeals Board, 1-3-2.
These are Lance Barrett (94)'s fourth and fifth ejections of 2012.
Lance Barrett now has 7 points in the UEFL (1 Previous + 2*[3 AAA + 0 Inconclusive Call] = 7).
Crew Chief Jim Joyce now has 6 points in the UEFL's crew division (4 Previous + 2*[1 Inconclusive] = 6).
*QOC is not Incorrect pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-2, the Miller Rule. Because the lower bound of the zone for this pitch was 1.69 feet and the pitch was located at a height of 1.693 feet, zone height (sz_bot) does not provide enough significant digits to conclusively state whether the call was correct or not.
^Quality of Correctness was reversed by the UEFL Appeals Board, 1-3-2.
These are the 138th and 139th ejections of 2012.
This is the 57th player ejection of 2012. Prior to his ejection, Pierzynski was 0-1 in the contest (F6).
This is the 67th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is the White Sox's 7th ejection of 2012, T-2nd in the AL Central (DET 9; KC, CWS 7; CLE, MIN 6).
This is A.J. Pierzynski's first ejection since April 20, 2011 (Brian Knight; QOC = Correct).
Video: Pierzynski and Ventura ejected arguing Barrett's strike zone, Hawk Harrelson rants again
Video: Chicago Bench Coach Mark Parent discusses the dual ejection after the contest
Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
Notice the PFX normalized/non-normalized paradox. The following image is of a non-normalized strike zone, with the strike zone bounding from a low of 1.5 feet to a high of 3.5 feet. The normalized strike zone for Smoak, on the other hand, contains a lower bound of 1.69 feet; the pitch was thrown at a height of 1.693 feet.
Video: Chicago Bench Coach Mark Parent discusses the dual ejection after the contest
Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
Notice the PFX normalized/non-normalized paradox. The following image is of a non-normalized strike zone, with the strike zone bounding from a low of 1.5 feet to a high of 3.5 feet. The normalized strike zone for Smoak, on the other hand, contains a lower bound of 1.69 feet; the pitch was thrown at a height of 1.693 feet.
87 comments :
And of course hawk was very anti-umpire even from the beginning of the game
Of course. That's all Hawk knows. At any rate, Barrett appears to be a high-ejection ump rather than a low-ejection ump. Personally, I think that's a good thing.
I'm watching the Nats/Phillies game and Manny Gonzalez was catching some $hit from Werth and Suzuki. These AAA guys gotta have brass balls because the MLB players and skips are always messing with them. Good for Lance. Waiting for the first plumber to come on here saying it wasn't deserved. By the way, if there is a bigger DBag announcer than Harrelson I've never heard him.
Don't know what was said, but Pierzynski was tossed while still in squat and facing the pitcher. It was after Ball 1 to Smoak.
Ventura then came out of the dugout. It quickly escalated, such that Jim Joyce served as the buffer for quite a while between Joyce and Barrett.
It was not only the first pitch to Pierzynski that caused the ejection. Ventura was already chirping off 2 breaking balls (called strikes) to Adam Dunn. White Sox felt slanted by zone early.
Zone has seemed to grow since the ejections.
Barrett ejected Oquendo I think that it was last week for arguing a zone that was really really big and now AJ and robin tossed for arguing a small zone, I believe that Barrett also tossed Cooper the sox's pitching coach as well at some point so i guess you could call him a hitters umpire.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24211233&c_id=mlb
The Hawk strikes again. His partner was worse than him this time actually. ALMOST comical. I love the part when he said this is the kind of game you send into the office to see how bad barrett is. AJ braught his glove up after he caught it which is why barrett thought it was a ball. Another entertaining ejection though. I love how jim joyce bitched out ventura also.
Mr. Harrelson don't let your phone get too far away for I expect Mr. Selig to be calling you again. Also, Mr. Harrelson, when a major league catcher such as A.J. butchers catching a pitch, don't expect too many MLB umpires to give him that pitch, especially borderline low. Mr. Harrelson, you're the one who's brutal.
Hawk is brutal, absolutely brutal. Hawk has just stunk the joint up. Every call that has not gone the White Sox way he has grumbled. He's terrible.
I don't think Stone was worse than Hawk. It is humanly impossible to be worse than Hawk. He sets the standard for broadcasting futility.
@SJR Another pea-sized brain baseball fan.
Did I hear bleep outs in this video. At the begining You can here AJ say your f'in brutal like 3 times, and then all of the suden hawk says barrett has been brutal. I believe this is the 2nd time this year during an ejection that hawk says the plate umpire has 2 different strike zones.
Are you referring to Hawk with that comment, I hope?
Actually, I happen to be an umpire. Get your facts straight before you hurl unwarranted insults.
@Anon7:59 This was the 2nd time Hawk "said" the umpire had 2 different strike zones. If you watched the game muted, it still was 2 different strike zones (although Barrett recovered after the 2nd inning). Hawk was right. Period.
Anon 8:05
White sox fan I presume. From the one pitch I saw AJ did a horrible job of frameing. That alone can cause 2 different zones.
The pitch was a strike and of that I have no doubt, but anything above Little League and that's a ball.
I went to JEAPU when Lance was Chief Field Instructor and Jim would say again and again that we have to have some credibility when calling balls and strikes.
Lance could've called that a strike, but probably would've had to dump Smoak or Wedge.
Be ready to see more of this from Lance because he is a take no shit umpire. He leads whatever league in ejections and always has.
He actually had an ejection his first ever MiLB game he worked.
I have absolutely no clue what the zone was like before this pitch...but I've got a bad feeling that the admins of this site will decide this call was incorrect.
That's not a strike in the GCL...let alone the big leagues.
Rat Harrelson: "Lance Barrett has been absolutely brutal. Brutal. He is absolutely brutal. Jim Joyce......(realizes it's Jim Joyce)..... the crew chief..........."
What a clown. Surely he gets another call from the commish for this debacle. Somebody get this idiot off the airwaves. Is this really what White Sox fans wanna listen to?? I'd surely watch my games on mute if I were a fan of the Sox.
Hawk was 100% right, you can not have two different strikes in the big leagues and Lance Barrett was about as inconsistent as they come. If its one thing I've learned, you have to have a consistent zone, Barrett was not consistent. Two strike zones = poor performance! Simple as that!!!
@Anon8:08 It's not where you catch it, it's where it crosses the strike zone. Based on Barrett's previous ejections regarding balls and strikes, it's something he needs to work on. And it's not the first time he's been behind the plate and had two different strike zones. Although he did improve the zone after the ejections.
***where it crosses the plate. Gah my typing is just as bad as Barrett's first two innings haha
I really enjoy the way Lance Barrett works.... No nonsense guy who handled himself well after the ejection. NOthing good comes away from getting heated. I loved the way mr calm JJ got a little fired up. Protect the young guys.. Definitely an old school approach.
@anon 9:27
Yeah.... where it crosses the plate.... In little league!!!! NOT a strike in professional baseball. Not even close. You can go on believing that but you're dead wrong.
I wouldn't even call that a strike in college baseball. MAYBE in HS if it's subvarsity or fall ball but then again probably not because I don't want to help the catcher develop bad habits. NOBODY calls that a strike in the big leagues.
Plumber talk.
I was at the game tonight. The first couple innings, were terrible, for both pitchers. You have 2 starters who rarely walk anyone and I think the first 2 innings they walked a combined 6....I'd say that is an indicator that Barrett was off his game. Strike zone was very tight and inconsistent. Somebody had to get tossed, and once AJ and Ventura did the game was much better to watch and Barrett got better as well.
anon 9:46
You were at the game so you could see the strike zone right? You probably had nose bleed seats too. I find that I can see the strike zone much better from there than when I am actually umpiring right behind the plate. I hate when people say they were at the game so they could see everything perfectly no matter where they were sitting.
Maybe AJ should learn to stick pitches and he might get that call. If a catcher pulls it up like that it tells everyone he thought it was down.
You've got to be kidding me, I don't care where the ball crossed the plate, catcher catches it and can't even keep the web of his glove up then pulls the pitch up? Aj has just told the entire stadium and anyone watching with any objective baseball knowledge that the pitch was not a strike. Ya it was a good breaking ball, so stick it! And catch it like you called for it there! This isn't a strike in a ball AA ball or aaa ball and especially not in the show.
Wow. This is the first time I've seen this site go inconclusive on a call from the beginning. I'd get rid of the brooks graphic as those of us who don't understand pitch f/x will point to the graph and say the ball was inside the strike zone, not understanding of course, that the brooks strike zone is the AVERAGE zone for the AVERAGE player and does not account for individual stances, hitter attributes, etc.
I don't know about the other pitches that people were complaining about, but on this one, I completely agree with SJR (is it also a coincidence that I'm also an umpire?), and a few others here. AJ does a horrible job of receiving this pitch. If you catch a borderline pitch swiping down into the ground, you're not going to get the call. And I don't know for sure what AJ said while still in the squat facing the pitcher, but if you say something like "That's f**king horses**t!" and "You're f**king brutal!!" like he was on his way off the field, you're gone. I don't care if you're smiling and polishing my shoes and handing me $50 while you do it, you're gone.
AJ knows he (AJ) butchered the pitch, he's (AJ) better than that and he (AJ) knows it.
The ejections were certainly warranted, but that sure looked like a strike to me.
I agree with Dan on both parts. The video seems to show the pitch crossing at the knee cap. The statistical data may say one thing, but the video evidence says another.
I also agree that Hawk's announcing during this call was brutal.
I do not agree with the people who defend the rule book on every call, but when it comes to this one, the rule book goes out the window. If the rule book says it is a strike, then it is a strike, regardless of where the ball gets caught.
Pitch never looked like a strike from jump street. In particular, AJ butchered the living S out of receiving that ball. There is a MLB umpire out there that should call this a strike cause of the way it was received.
As for the AJ ejection. Who knows what was said (except for homeboy in the previous comment that was at the game and nowhere near home plate). You knew Robin was going as well though and Joyce was classic.
As for the Hawkster... what a complete and total jackass. I hope that he has to go meet with Mr. Selig again and that he gets suspended. Sooner or later he is going to say something that will get a fan all ramped up and try and do something stupid and all we can hope for is that Laz Dias or Ted Barrett is on the field to take care of it (former Marine and professional boxer respectively).
Dear White Sox fans: It's called "catcher's influence." AJ pulled that pitch up at least 4-5 inches. Therefore, AJ was telling the umpire that AJ didn't think it was a strike and that he needed to pull the pitch in the zone.
As for this announcer guy, what an idiot.
To all the Anons who commented on AJ's handling of the pitch: +1
I was once working a JV hs softball game, kid does the exact same thing AJ did, and I called it a ball. Kid looks at me, and I asked her, "Why do you think I called that a ball?" She said, "I don't know'" and I answered, "Because when you pulled that glove up YOU told you didn't think it was a strike either."
Same thing applies here and EVERYwhere - and screw the pitch trackers, which has been pointed out, should never be the definitive guide to what was a ball/strike, due to their inflexibility.
After watching Quick Pitch, we'll need to go back to Adam Dunn's AB in the previous half inning to get a real clue as to the Sox beef. Dunn was punched out after taking two consecutive pitches in nearly the same part of the zone. I'd be interested in seeing the chart for that AB but clearly the Sox thought there were two different zones being called at the time.
As for Hawk, what do you expect? The guy is lovable only to Sox fans, and a joke to everyone else. If he's suspended, we can all enjoy a few games without his annoying catch phrases.
Here's the plot on the Dunn AB, which was in the first inning, not the bottom of the 2nd. And the two pitches weren't consecutive. Strike 2 came on the second pitch, strike 3 on the sixth. You can see here both are located outside the zone.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=518444&game=gid_2012_08_25_seamlb_chamlb_1&batterX=12&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif
When did it become ok for umps to initiate contact with a manager?
Anon 10:24 PM, my seats were right behind home plate, so I could see just fine. You can see me in the video. The game Barrett was calling in the first 2 innings was horrible. As I pointed out before, Beavan and Quintana are both typically accurate, look up their stats if you don't believe me. 6 total walks in 2 innings from guys that don't usually walk guys. Barrett's zone was incredibly inconsistent until AJ and Robin got tossed. Seems to me that Barrett could use a series off, he's struggling behind the plate in his last 2 outings. I'd also like to see Barrett stick up for himself when the manager gets out there, at least for a little bit, then Joyce can step in.
Barrett won't be around long if he keeps calling games like this.
Anon 5:39 I saw you behind the plate...was that a dog or a polish?...Hawk, Stoney, and you are all toolboxes...Could AJ have butchered that pitch any bigger?
Please inform Hawk and Stone when they send the video to the American League office that it will be returned as the umpires fall under the BIG umbrella of MLB. Morons.
challenge- the call is incorrect due to overwhelming visual evidence- we can see clearly where the ball crosses above the knees
The FACT of the matter is... Z-Tech., MLB's balls and strikes rating system, allows for one thing to change a strike to a ball, and keep a high score: CATCHER ADJUSTMENT... A.J. butchered catching that pitch, is a RAT and HOT HEAD, and I am sure, he got what he had coming to him. And do not think, for one second that the pitch should have been called a strike. You call that a strike, and the ballpark will look like DISCO NIGHT at COMISKEY all over again... cause they will burn the park down! Oh... and HAWK will get a nice hit for this, MLB LOVES LANCE.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8303626/chicago-white-sox-broadcaster-ken-hawk-harrelson-was-critical-home-plate-umpire-lance-barrett
Currently a headline on the front page of ESPN.
"Mr. Harrelson don't let your phone get too far away for I expect Mr. Selig to be calling you again. Also, Mr. Harrelson, when a major league catcher such as A.J. butchers catching a pitch, don't expect too many MLB umpires to give him that pitch, especially borderline low. Mr. Harrelson, you're the one who's brutal. "
Harrelson is an announcer, drama is in his arena. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out - Larry Holmes could figure that one out. I watched part of this game and thought the strike zone was inconsistent, though not horrible (I think he definitely missed this pitch). I don't know as much about Barrett as I do about other umpires, but I've seen worse calls made. And for the record, AJ did not butcher anything.
@LouOCNY Well if you did say that to her, than you're simply a confrontational narcissist and ought to keep your mouth shut.
And all of you geniuses who say AJ can't catch: he's caught a no-hitter, perfect game, and has a ring. He's not an idiot. Wouldn't have this problem with Jim Joyce calling the game. A.J. might be an a$$ on the field, and maybe can't throw any runners out, but as far as calling a game or framing pitches, he's not incompetent.
Anon 9:56- Amen! Watch the first 2 innings! Then you umpire huggers will see what BOTH teams were dealing with. Barrett was bad for the first 2 innings. This wasn't about AJ butchering a pitch. And by the way, I had a Bratwurst not a Polish.
"@LouOCNY Well if you did say that to her, than you're simply a confrontational narcissist and ought to keep your mouth shut. "
I could not agree more. I work games with guys like that. I don't mind informing disgruntled players that an official that does that has bigger issues confronting him or her than simply needing to superimpose his or her own authority on the game (above and beyond the heeded call, so to speak). Like a teenie weenie.
"Anon 9:56- Amen! Watch the first 2 innings! Then you umpire huggers will see what BOTH teams were dealing with. Barrett was bad for the first 2 innings. This wasn't about AJ butchering a pitch. And by the way, I had a Bratwurst not a Polish. "
Everyone has off days. I thought Ventura handled himself fine. And to be honest, I was surprised to see AJ ejected when he was still in the squat, facing forward. Makes me wonder.
Just because AJ was in the squat and facing forward doesnt mean he didnt say something like "go f yourself" or "you're f'n horrible" Why dont people get that?
This is the chart for Beavan in the first 2 innings.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/numlocation.php?pitchSel=518444&game=gid_2012_08_25_seamlb_chamlb_1/&batterX=0&innings=yynnnnnnn&sp_type=1&s_type=3
This is the chart for Quintana in the first 2 innings.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/numlocation.php?pitchSel=500779&game=gid_2012_08_25_seamlb_chamlb_1/&batterX=&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=
Watched the game live, and even Mariners' broadcast was making comments on strikezone early in game. Barrett settled in after the ejections, in my opinion.
David Rackley just picked up his first career MLB ejection. He ejected Marwin Gonzalez for throwing his helmet after an out call. It was an excellent call by Rackley, but the ejection was kind of quick. Reminds me of the Gerardo Parra-Adrian Johnson ejection 2 years ago, when Parra was out on a close call and threw his helmet and was ejected. I remember most people on this site said that should have been an equipment fine cause he was mad at himself. Same seemed true here with Gonzalez. In other news though, I think Rackley is a star in the making. I have been really impressed every time I have seen him and he has been used quite a bit during the second half of the year after barely being used int the first half.
Looks like the Bobby V got tossed by Bellino.
video of Rackley play but not the ejection. First video on the gameday.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_08_26_houmlb_nynmlb_1&highlight_content_id=24233115
Interesting article with regards to the broadcasting intern we call Hawk:
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/19925216/white-sox-announcer-ken-hawk-harrelson-verbally-abuses-another-umpire
Hawk's defiant homerism is evident in his famous lines "its been brutal" and "he's had two different strike zones" has come up both of Ventura's ejections this season. I guess that Mr. Selig didn't teach him that not all calls go for the Sox.
Why are we surprised Hawk is bashing an umpire? We act like he's the only one.
He's a homer, again, nothing new. White Sox fans like him, other 29 teams don't. He's a fan with a microphone in front of him.
I do recommend people watch M's replay of game last night; they were kinder, but understood displeasure (particularly in Adam Dunn at bat)
I believe the pitch was a ball also. An umpire who isn't stinking up the joint would be left alone here but you have to pay attention to Lance's last few games behind the plate. His game with St. Louis might have be one of the worst plate jobs I have ever scene. My take:
A.J. Sucks at framing this pitch.
Announcers suck at explaining the situation.
Lance sucks at the plate.
Lance will never get a full time job in the bigs.
Lots of sucking going on here.
AJ baptized that pitch...he pulls the glove up 4" after catching it. Plus, he sets up outside edge and pitch finishes middle-in. I completely understand why that was called a ball.
I seriously wonder if Hawk remembers any of his ex-wives names...considering there hasn't been an American League office in over a decade.
To a post way above in this thread about Manny Gonzalez re: Werth and Suzuki:
I was at the game, and their frustration had more to do with Roy Halladay than the calls themselves. He was on last night (threw just 19 pitches that were balls over 7 innings).
The guy who gave Gonzalez the most grief was Bryce Harper, who stepped out of the box and said something to him in the middle of one at-bat. That is one cocky teenager.
Bryce Haprer will be ejected at least once by the end of next season you can book it. He is so demonstrative and disrespectful towards umpires.
This is the same umpire who was brutal last week in the Pirates/Cardinals game. His strike zone is terrible. Are they truly out of umpires who can umpire at this level or is it just that Barrett knows someone so he gets the job? Two games in a week that players/coaches are incensed by his zone.
Ditto... A lot of plumbers on here...AJ butchered it and Lance should have told him that. I love all these spineless gutless plumbers that come on here and say it was all Lance's fault.
CHALLENGE- ball crosses above batter's knees clearly on side view
Doesn't mean it should have been called a strike
the 'east-west' dimension is not in question, only the height...and if its in the strike zone, it should be called a strike per this forum, regardless of umpire's convention which relies on how the catcher receives the ball
That is probly the most animated i have seen JJ in awhile maybe the brad mills ej is the only other time in recent memory i can think of that JJ was that animated with a manager
@Anon10:12 Again, watch the first two innings. Unless you're too stupid to understand what "watch the first too innings" means. Or look at the Brooks pitch chart the first two innings. Proves the point either way that the ejection wasn't based on that one pitch. Moron.
Yes, i'm stupid for typing "too" and not "two" blah blah blah...but i'm surrounded by a bunch of umpire-huggers. It was bound to happen lol
The anonymous user who uses the "plumber" phrases could very well be Lance Barrett himself. Based on his strike zones in the Cardinals-Pirates game and White Sox-Mariners game, Lance (since Lance likes to talk in third person...) is not very intelligent. In fact, remedial.
Not very intelligent? Wow! I'd like to see you do his job.
Well put it this way: if there was one open MLB umpiring spot for a AAA call-up, and the 3 finalists were Al Porter, Lance Barrett, and David Rackley, Al Porter would win it and Lance Barrett would finish dead last.
you don't think estabrook or reyburn, or even conroy would be on that list?
Well I think any of the AAA call ups (including Angel Campos, Tumpane, etc.) would be; those were just the first 3 that came to mind. I still like Porter and Estabrook over Lance merely for their more consistent strike zones. Not sure with Reyburn, although I'd probably have to go with Lance over D.J. on that one just with D.J. being way too confrontational.
Ok so maybe not dead last. But certainly not on the top of the list...
What about Carapazza or Muchlinski?
"Hawk's defiant homerism is evident in his famous lines "its been brutal" and "he's had two different strike zones" has come up both of Ventura's ejections this season. I guess that Mr. Selig didn't teach him that not all calls go for the Sox. "
As much as I disagree with the approach, there is nothing wrong with what Hawk says despite being reprimanded. To be honest, the Commish has no right to veto someone's opinion. He called umpiring "brutal". He did not ask people to BRUTALize officials, and is not even overtly bellicose in his sentiment. I've heard worse from parents at a U9 soccer game.
After review, the Original Ruling has reversed in a 1-3-2 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members voted to overturn the call, two elected to defer it and one elected to uphold it.
Majority Opinion, yawetag:
The problem with that assumption is that Smoak's knee isn't necessarily at the front edge of the plate. In frame-by-frame, the ball was over Smoak's knee as it crossed his knee, and it appears Smoak's leg is behind the front edge of the plate after he strides. Using that information, and the assumption the ball was dropping, it had to have also been in the zone when it crossed the plate.
I'm saying the pitch was technically a strike. Overturn.
Concurring Opinion, Albertaumpire:
Overturn gents! Interestingly enough...The ejection had more to do with previous pitches and thats the pitch that Aj used as the straw to break the camels back per say!
Dissenting Opinion, RichMSN:
I think it's a pitch that could legitimately be called either way. I would be much more likely to vote to overturn (consider it a strike) or even defer had AJ not let the glove drop and then pull it up 4+ inches.
To me, this is the tiebreaker. Uphold.
Dissenting Opinion, tmac:
i have no evidence Camera to prove this call either way.... A slight move to a camera can make a pitch look up or down
Therefore, the Board reverses the Original Ruling.
Confirmed: None
Upheld: RichMSN
Overturned: Albertaumpire, BillMueller, yawetag
Deferred: Jeremy, tmac
Abstained: Gil (Posted Original Ruling)
Quality of Correctness has been reversed, 1-3-2.
I just don't buy that that pitch could be a strike i've seen no visual evidence and i've looked at this about 30 times. Therefore I would like to invoke rule 9-2 & challenge the boards ruling
Barrett having problems with strike zone again in Dodgers-Rockies game.
So, here is an issue I have with "overturning" the original QOC...
The Board of Appeals did not reach a majority. Three of seven (and even three of six) is not a majority. Without a majority, you should not overturn the call (in law, the decision of the lower court stands without a majority).
I think Appeals Board procedure needs to be better codified in the UEFL rulebook for next season.
Recall the Appeals Board makes decisions based off of a relative majority of fixed membership structure. Because the decision to defer is generally a last resort, the fixed membership specifically excludes abstained & deferred; a majority achieved within the confines of this fixed membership is sufficient for decision-making, which may create the false appearance of a plurality (such as with this decision). Conversely, deferment does invoke plurality.
For instance, while this decision of 3-2-1 might appear to follow plurality, it does not. A decision of 2-1-2 (wherein two votes to overturn, one to confirm, two to defer) would result in an overturn. A decision of 2-2-2 or 2-2-1 would result in a casting vote, which generally would observe Speaker Denison's rule to vote in favor of the status quo (confirm). Because deferment exclusively invokes plurality, a decision of 1-2-3 or 2-2-3 would result in a deferred QOC (likely irrecusable).
I challenge the appeal boards decision invoking rule 9-2. I know it was unsuccessful in Brian knight ejection 5 but its worth a shot Cuse I see no evidence this was a strike.
The Appeals Board's decision has been submitted for review to the UEFL Commissioners and Appellate Interpreter, pursuant to Rule 9-2, the Finality and Overwhelming Exemption clause.
Opinion, Gil:
Rule 9-2 specifies that, for an Appeals Board's decision to be considered, "overwhelming evidence" must "surface to overturn the challenged decision." Furthermore, in reviewing the Board's decision, the UEFL Appellate Interpreter only considers whether the Board has followed UEFL procedure in crafting its decision. The Appellate Interpreter is not tasked with overturning a decision based on previously-supplied evidence. Henceforth, because no new evidence has surfaced, the Appellate Interpreter turns attention to whether the Board's decision-making process is in concert with UEFL Rules and Procedures.
Though pitch f/x suggests an inconclusive call pursuant to Rule 6-2-b-2, the Appeals Board has ruled this an incorrect call. Because the Majority Opinion cites what may be interpreted as convincing evidence, as prescribed by UEFL Rule 6-5-a, in forming this respective conclusion, the Appellate Interpreter finds the Board employed ample regard for UEFL Rules in reaching its decision. Because the specific issue of significant digit discrepency has not otherwise been addressed in these Rules, the Board's invocation of Rule 9-1, the Elastic Clause, was appropriate and such invocation is supported by the Appellate Interpreter.
Therefore, the Appellate Interpreter affirms the UEFL Appeal Board's ruling.
Thx Gill I knew the chances were slim but it was worth the try
Post a Comment