HP Umpire Dan Iassogna ejected Pirates C Russell Martin and Manager Clint Hurdle for arguing a ball call in the bottom of the 4th inning of the Pirates-Braves game. With two out and one on, Braves batter Kris Medlen
took a 1-0 sinker from Pirates pitcher AJ Burnett for a called second ball. Replays indicate all balls called in the half inning, including the Medlen ball two call (px 0.776) were properly officiated (see note regarding Kulpa Rule, below), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Braves were leading, 2-1. The Braves ultimately won the contest, 7-2.
 |
| Iassogna and Hurdle dispute Martin's ejection. |
These are Dan Iassogna (58)'s 2nd and 3rd ejections of 2013.
Dan Iassogna now has 11 points in the UEFL (3 Previous + 2*[2 MLB + 2 Correct Call] = 11).
Crew Chief Gerry Davis now has 5 points in the Crew Division (3 Previous + 2*[1 Correct] = 5).
*Pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule), QOC for a px value greater than 0.768, with appropriate pz valuation, called a strike on the field, "shall routinely reflect the call on the field as correct."
These are the 59th and 60th ejections of 2013.
This is the 27th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Martin was 0-2 in the contest with 1 K.
*Pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule), QOC for a px value greater than 0.768, with appropriate pz valuation, called a strike on the field, "shall routinely reflect the call on the field as correct."
These are the 59th and 60th ejections of 2013.
This is the 27th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Martin was 0-2 in the contest with 1 K.
This is the 30th Manager ejection of 2013.
This the Pirates' 5th/6th ejection of 2013, 1st in the NL Central (PIT 6; CHC, MIL, STL 2; CIN 0).
This is Russell Martin's first ejection since March 24 (Chad Fairchild; QOC = U).
This is Clint Hurdle's first ejection since May 19 (CB Bucknor; QOC = Y).
This is Dan Iassogna's first ejection since April 25 (Charlie Manuel; QOC = Y).
88 comments :
I asked this question last year and for some reason no one understood what I meant. Ill try and say it better this time. What is the record for most ejections in a season total? Last year we had 179. What is the record? When I asked this last year Everyone thought I meant by one umpire, one player, or one manager. Just wondering because its early June and we are already at 60. I believe we are way ahead of last years pace.
I'm challenging the heck out of this. That's a strike ALL DAY.
Since the QOC for a ball/strike call is determined by PitchFX, on what grounds do you base your challenge?
I love how the announcers blatantly ignore their own pitchtrack software that shows it inside. And for me, I think Iassogna has quietly become one of the better umpires in the league. He had several excellent calls in the World Series, and he is 3 for 3 so far this year on ejections.
The Pirates announcers are pretty good most of the time, but when a Pirate gets ejected they are just awful.
Huh? The Pirates pitch tracker displays that pitch as a strike.
Zero consistency. That's a strike and we all know it. He's called further pitches inside.
Cause it's not like Gil and the rest of the appeals board have anything better to do in their lives than answer to pointless challenges. 1) Read the PitchFX results. 2) Read the rules.
Preferably do those before you comment with the word, 'Challenge'.
Apparently it's not a strike ALL DAY because Dan Iassogna called it a ball.
That was a strike anyway you look at it. I'm not an ump hater I'm just saying it was a strike and the pitch tracker even said so.
I think because we're getting a lot of 2 for 1s this season.
Only the location of pitches relative to the rulebook strike zone can be considered. The umpire's strike zone and/or its consistency are not relevant. The rulebook strike zone is reflected by the PitchFX data, which is what is used to determine the QOC.
So I ask again, on what grounds do you base your challenge?
I normally don't care about ball/strike stuff but I'm assuming the official pitchfx data is different from the one they show on the reply? I don't understand how this is a ball.
Last time I checked the ball just has to graze the strike zone. This ball does more than just graze it.
TV pitch trackers are very inaccurate.
I think we all agree the call was "inside" (as opposed to high/low)...and I'm quite confident an overhead shot would provide clear and convincing evidence of the ball crossing the plate. That should be enough basis for a challenge.
According to UEFL rule 6-2-b-1, this call is correct "unless evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise". If such an overhead shot exists, it would be basis for a challenge. Do you have this overhead shot?
Based on what, the incredibly "accurate" tracker they use on TV? Cause it "looked good?"
You see the Pitch F/X data. I'm not one who feels like Pitch F/X is the be-all-and-end-all of everything, but what *proof* do you have that this was a missed call?
Seemed like a quick hook. Wonder what Martin said, or was that just the final words of an ongoing "discussion" between the two.
If I'm reading Iassogna's lips correctly, it looks like Martin said, "F*** You Dan." Or at least that's what Iassonga said Martin told him.
In the last replay when Martin turns around after getting tosses it looks like Iassonga is answering Martin who I'm guessing asked 'What did I do?"
Curt Schilling just called for Dan to be suspended on Baseball Tonight. They also put up some chart with no explanation that supposedly offered "statistical evidence" that Dan is one of the most inaccurate umps in baseball.
No, but I think a reasonable person looking at the CF view would be able to hypothesize that, if such a view were available, it would show the ball crossing over at least part of the plate. Some common sense and reasonable judgment needs to be applied here as well.
Saying "if there were evidence I'm sure it would agree with me" does not equal "overwhelming evidence". You have no basis for a challenge.
Really? That CF view is dead on? We're supposed to "hypothesize?"
"There's no real nice way to know if he said any of the "magic words".
So how does it "seem" like a quick hook? You have no idea what was said and Dan told Hurdle clearly that he had warned Martin. And call me crazy, but I trust a calling official's word over recently ejected player.
Also got to love Dan's ejection mechanic on Hurdle: "Yaaa"
I did not challenge. I simply said I think it is reasonable to challenge. Hypothesize was the wrong word- extrapolate would be more accurate. If a group of reasonable, unbiased umpires agree that this pitch is a ball, then the call should stand. But I'd say there is a chance (be it likely or unlikely) that they would think that this is a strike.
A reading of the UEFL Rulebook makes it quite clear why this pitch is correct whether Iassogna called it a ball or a strike. This call is correct according to UEFL standards as well as would also be correct to the umpire evaluators. We can argue that it is a strike all we want after viewing the off-centered camera view and the 'always accurate' TV pitch tracker, but neither of them provide clear and convincing evidence to contradict the known accuracy and margin-of-error of PitchFX.
This is the exact reason we have umpires as even if we used PitchFX to call balls/strikes we would still be arguing about them all day long.
And I simply said that, under UEFL rules, what you have stated is not a reasonable basis for a challenge. You MUST have "overwhelming evidence" to challenge this ruling. You do not have that.
I never understand how anyone that wasn't on the field can determine if a 'hook was quick'. There are a lot of things that can be said and done that can get you tossed immediately and unless every person out there had a mic on them we will never know exactly what was said.
It depends on what is meant by "quick hook". If it is meant as in "that ejection was quicker than the average ejection" then that it something that can theoretically be determined quantitatively. If, on the other hand, it is meant as "that ejection was quicker than it should have been" then the comment is without basis.
Good point.
My comment would be based on "that ejection was quicker than it should have been" as this is what I understand to be meant most of the time we hear it...mainly by clueless announcers.
Tell me that's not a strike. Clearly it is. But I have to give Dan props bc he was consistent all night. Small strike zone but called it the same for both teams.
PitchFX says it's not a strike.
Indeed. The conversation between Martin and Iassogna may have been going since the first inning, where a pitch in a similar location was also ruled a ball.
What do u think it was from looking at the picture I posted???
Here's what MLB At Bat's PitchFX tracker said.
I think Curt Should be suspended for lining his pockets with gov't money and then bankrupting his video game biz!
Clearly crosses the inner black of the plate. Forget about technology. Look with ur 2 eyes.
The camera that took that footage is not centered on the plate. The location of the ball in that image is therefore irrelevant.
Then look at the other picture I posted of the "PITCHFX"
Agreed. He's so crooked and corrupt it's not even funny. What bothered me more was the chart that Baseball Tonight put up, with no context or explanation, that they said proved Dan is one of the most inaccurate umpires in baseball. I rewound the DVR on my TV a few times looking at the chart and I couldn't make any sense out of it, but the average viewer is going to see it, and hear Curt say what he said, and conclude that the umpire must be incompetant.
It's sad but true that the average viewer is actually that stupid. I don't suppose you could get an image of the chart? I'm curious now.
Also irrelevant. By UEFL rules, only one thing regarding PitchFX is even considered: The numerical PitchFX value. The value is px 0.776. UEFL rule 6-2-b-1 states "pitches with an absolute px value between 0.768 and 0.935 shall be deemed borderline, and shall routinely reflect the call on the field as correct unless evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise". The only way you are likely to fulfill the requirement of overwhelming evidence is if you have access to a correctly-centered camera angle.
It'd be funny if Dan could produce his numbers as given by the zone track system and sue Schilling for libel.
It's sad. Kingdoms of Amalur was actually a fairly fun game.
I wouldn't have any clue how to. It basically looked like something the ESPN graphics department threw together in under 45 seconds. It just had the years 2011, 2012, 2013 listed, and random percentage, and then an "official MLB rank", but it didn't explain what any of the numbers represented or offer any context..
That's why I'm curious as to what was said or if it was ongoing. There was very little visible that would lead to a hook, and even then, one sentence is not usually enough to get most people tossed, which is really all Martin had time for. Then again, I'm biased and looking at this from my point of view, which is generally much more tolerant than average as I was a former collegiate player, and much preferred umpires who were willing to work with us and let us play rather than instilling their discipline with an iron fist (no problem with umpires who do this by the way). So, to me, "seems like a quick hook", can be interpreted as, unless you manage to insult me, my mother, my girlfriend, my father, and my pets in that short time frame, it's deemed as a quick hook in my books. That said, if it was ongoing "discussion", he gets a hook almost immediately.
Sorry for being unclear. But as I said, I have no way of knowing what was said. Even if a warning has been issued, "Oh, come on" isn't likely to result in an ejection with me. If he was warned, and then directly questioned the strike zone, he's done, but there's no nice way to know what he said. Also, as I said in one of my previous responses, I'm biased to my point of view, and how I controlled the game, which was much more lenient than most, so a quick sentence was unlikely to prompt an ejection regardless if there had been a warning or not.
Sorry if I was unclear about what I deemed a "quick hook". There was very little preamble to the ejection, so that is why I wondered in my post a) what was said, and b) if it was ongoing. I should have said, seemed like a quick hook, but I do not know the background about the ejection. That might have made things clearer.
By posting the picture of the PitchFX you proved yourself wrong. PitchFX shows the pitch to be a ball.
Actually, the image he posted shows it within the strike zone. Gameday and At-Bat label the pitch as what it was called, not by where it is, so it is shown as a ball because Iassogna called it a ball.
Going off of what we can see Dan say ("I did, I warned him") it can be reasonably assumed that much more than one sentence had been stated and the discussion was likely an on-going one that we just couldn't see.
This looks like a very good zone to me. He has a few misses on the inside pitches and has one terrible strike call but nobody is perfect. He was consistent about not calling the inside strike on lefties.
Where the hell did Curt Schilling get this information? Dan has worked the Playoffs each of the last few years and worked the World Series with less experience than most who work their first World Series. Curt may not like Dan, but the MLB Umpiring brass clearly does. Looking at just his left handed plot, it looks very consistent so I am going to go ahead and call BS on the statement on Iassogna being one of the least consistent Umpires in the league.
Finally, why does Curt think Dan should be suspended? Because he decided not take crap from a Catcher who has proven to be a major problem for Umpires in the past? For supposedly missing one pitch (even though he didn't)? Schilling is full of crap and is just trolling. Ever since he has joined ESPN he has been nothing but critical of the Umpires. That is why I watch MLB Network. Darryl Hamilton was one of the Analysts when these ejections happened and immediatly came to Iassogna's defense. He was also the only Analyst I heard who said Fagan had a good ejection Yesterday.
That picture makes it look like a ball.
This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board. Though UEFL 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule) states "pitches with an absolute px value between 0.768 and 0.935 shall be deemed borderline, and shall routinely reflect the call on the field as correct unless evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise," the Original Ruling's determination of "evidence" to a degree of "overwhelmingly" is itself appealable, though the Pitch f/x determination of 0.776 is not.
In other words, the fact that Pitch f/x and Kulpa have px at 0.776, which is considered borderline (may be a ball or a strike) cannot be challenged. However, because a borderline pitch that is usually QOC'd as correct may, under circumstance of overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise, be QOC'd as incorrect, the issue of whether the Original Ruling's decision that there was not evidence to overwhelmingly suggest otherwise was proper is appealable.
When the Board reviews this case, if it feels the OR was in error and "evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise," the Board might elect to reverse; otherwise, the Board may affirm or defer.
Does it seem like we're getting a lot of ejections earlier in games this year? Is it because there is so much focus on the bad calls that have been made that everything is in question?
I didn't watch the whole game but saw some highlights on MLB network. Burnett was becoming increasingly frustrated Iassongna's zone. The Braves broadcast had the home plate mic up in the mix during the inning in question and Iassongna's "ball call" on the pitch that got Martin tossed was much more emphatic after he had words with Burnett. What was interesting also was, during Burnett's exchange, Braves broadcaster Joe Simpson noted that Iassongna "has a short fuse." When Martin got ejected, Simpson reiterated, "I told you he had a short fuse."
And from the Pirates' MLB beat writer:
ATLANTA -- Pirates catcher Russell Martin did not want there to be
any confusion about what he said that drew an ejection from home-plate
umpire Dan Iassogna in Monday night's 7-2 loss to the Braves.
"The umpire [Iassogna] didn't call a pitch that I thought was a good
pitch, and I stood up and I [cursed], and he threw me out," Martin said.
"That's the way it happened."
And later from Martin:
"It's strange, normally you kind of feel it build up, there's tension
between me and him, but it wasn't really that type of game," Martin
said. "I didn't really criticize him for any pitches during the game. I
was just back there, and he's normally a guy that I get along with."
Man, that pitch looks like a strike to me. Damn close.
Russell Martin is no better to umpires than Yadier Molina. They are both hot head pricks and I'm really glad I don't have to put up with their crap for 3 hours at a time. He obviously said the magic words, as there is no "quick hook" in baseball. When it's time to take the garbage out, it better happen or the ump will lose control and respect.
That pitch always look closer when caught because it's a two-seam fastball that tails back in.
I think you have to defer to Iassogna here. If I'm a Pirates fan, I'd want that called a strike. If I'm a Braves fan, I'd want that called a ball.
Point being: it's as borderline as borderline can be and unless you get an over the plate shot that shows the ball tailing back over the plate in time, there is no clear cut evidence to support it as a definitive strike, imo.
And the fact that Iassogna told Hurdle, "I warned him", I wouldn't quite call that a "quick hook". I'd call it "the final straw".
Mr. Furino,
I think people on this site could learn a lot from you.
For the most part, we are all officials...part of a special fraternity.
There are many many posters on this site who feel the need to insult eachother and call each other "clowns" or "jokes". I am impressed that you take an approach of an actual official and listen to what other posters have to say.
The evidence doesn't suggest anything other than it was a borderline pitch.
It's a strike all day in the levels I work (including up to NCAA), but I'm not in the big leagues, either, nor ever will be.
There's nothing here that's overwhelming to overturn the QOC. There's nothing here to confirm it's correctness, either, other than the Pitch F/X numbers putting it in the borderline category.
In other words, the difference between "Confirm" and "Uphold." Both of which end up making Iassogna correct as far as the QOC goes.
Oakgrove1's screenshot actually is the best evidence I've seen that the pitch is inside -- it's a 2-seam fastball that's tailing back and it doesn't look like it has the plate.
As far as comments on Iassogna, he's already proven himself to be a rock star on the game's biggest stage (anyone who thinks otherwise should watch the MLB special "The Third Team" from last year's World Series) and I wouldn't be surprised for him to be among the next generation of crew chiefs.
I'm not buying into this "quick hook" theory. Is there some level of unsportsmanlike behavior that umpires are required to take? Some athlete says "FU" to me directly and he's gone--I don't care what sport or what level. That's pretty easy to explain and understand. Do you know what isn't easy to explain, in my opinion? The situation where the player doesn't get tossed for addressing the ump in that manner.
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the challenger to bring the evidence to your attention?
There appears to be a history between the two. If I'm not mistaken Iassogna threw Martin out 5 or 6 years ago for balls/strikes.
I personally would take anything Martin says with a grain of salt as he does have a history with multiple umpires and every time, according to him, it was the umpire who instigated the situation or had the 'quick hook'. I wouldn't go so far to say that Martin is a 'hothead' but there is precedent to state that he is rather argumentative.
September 1st 2007- Here is a blast from the past. Go to about the 56 second mark.
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/player/mp_tpl_3_1.jsp?w=2007/open/tp/archive09/090107_lansdn_peavy_reel_tp_350.wmv&w_id=596461&pid=mlb_tp&fid=mlb_tp400&v=2&gid=2007/09/01/lanmlb-sdnmlb-1&login=N&authorization=N&mType=w&urlstr=&mUrl=&type=v_free&_mp=1
Chances are he combined an expletive with the real magic word, you. Never looks good when an umpire throws out a catcher, because no one understands the discussion going on behind the plate. And you can give me this "warn the catcher" BS, but if you do that, you wind up getting toasted for instigating.
http://gyazo.com/ee9700c2888fc51995c86d86f7ab31a0
heres the ab of Medlen
You can even see A.J. motioning to Martin as if to say, "just throw the ball back to me!" But any umpire can tell Martin is a b*#%^ of a catcher to call a game with. Just his body language after a close pitch doesn't go his way alone! Guarantee Iassogna had his full...hence the "quick hook". Lol
You're funny.
The charts showed pitch 1 and 2 in the strike zone. If one umpire is going to be complimented by balls correctly called because they are out of the box then another one being complimented from calling pitches balls when they are inside the box is hypocritical.
True. But he warned him about arguing pitches that were strikes according to boxes that are being calculated by several cameras and a computer program. Not to mention he squeezed Burnett the entire game.
I bet you thought Jerry Mills was right.
Years ago the cameras were from the shortstop side of the plate and the pitches would appear more to one side but now many ball parks have cameras on a straight line over the pitcher's head (some still do use the shortstop camera especially during day games due to certain issues such as sun angle).
By the way, your clear cut evidence thing references that we should probably not rely on technology? There is clear cut evidence. There are other outlets not associated with Pittsburgh that have the pitches as being in the strike zone. They were in fact no even on the line but inside of the vertical line that represents the inside corner.
Borderline? Yes. No clear cut evidenced? There was clearcut evidence.
*Pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule), QOC for a px value greater than 0.768, with appropriate pz valuation, called a strike on the field, "shall routinely reflect the call on the field as correct."
Lol. You guys should call that the CYA rule.
If you produce this 'clear cut evidence' that proves the pitch was definitely a strike beyond the technologies margin-of-error, then I guarantee you the appeals board will overturn the ruling.
The rule is in place to account for the margin of error that PitchFX has. Values from px 0.768 and 0.935 are considered borderline and, due to the aforementioned inaccuracy, the benefit of the doubt for them must be given to the umpire by UEFL rule.
It's not hypocritical. It's the rules.
These ejections seem to be especially popular. I want to ensure we are being thorough.
In re 059, 60 Iassogna 2, 3
After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a 4-0-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Four Appeals Board members voted to uphold the Original Ruling while one elected to defer it.
Majority Opinion, BT_Blue:
First let me say I think there is a place to say this pitch could be called a strike. However, from the photos and pictures and such posted by others on the UEFL page, I feel that the evidence presented does not present an overwhelming reason to overturn the original decision. So far only the Pitch FX chart is the only accurate piece of evidence I have seen. And this supports the idea that the call would be correct per the Kulpa Rule.
So because I am not wholy convinced that the call is correct I will not Confirm the original ruling. But since I also have yet to be presented with a clear reason the ruling is wrong, I will be voting to Uphold the original QOC.
Concurring Opinion, RichMSN:
That pitch is one that deserves to be given to the umpire, not to the off-centered cameras and to the usual band of complainers on the discussion part of the site. The one picture posted as evidence that it was a strike actually tells me that the pitch was probably a touch inside, to boot.
So I elect to uphold.
Concurring Opinion, yawetag:
Using video footage to make your point is moot when we have technology that works much better.
Dissenting Opinion, Turducken:
To me, I think that's a strike. It looks good to me. But I'm not behind home plate. I didn't see what Iassogna saw. I'm going to reject technology with consideration of UEFL rules [and to the umpire] and elect to defer.
Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.
Confirmed: -
Upheld: tmac, RichMSN, yawetag, BT_Blue
Overturned: -
Deferred: Turducken
Abstained: Gil (posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment)
So you are being racist now hey!
So you are making stuff up now hey!
I'm making stuff up???? "Engrish" came from one of your own comments. If that is not racism, then define it!!!!!
Racism: Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Engrish: A slang term for the misuse of the English language. The term relates to the tendency of Japanese speakers to substitute the phenomes "r" and "l". The term originates largely from early video games made in Japan that, upon translation to English, featured humorous mistakes such as "congraturations" and "all your base are belong to us" and "I am sick out of my mind". Here is a paper written by the Lecturer of English at Keiai University referring to Engrish:
"However, the English seen in Japan -- primarily on products, but in other venues as well -- often leaves one baffled. Much of it is at best odd, and at worst incomprehensible. It abounds with mechanical, grammatical, and lexical errors, which contribute in varying degrees to obsscure the meaning.
The type of English described above [...] is a well-documented phenomenon which has been noted by many. It has even acquired a technical name -- 'Engrish.' [...] Unlike some similar terms [...] which are considered more derogatory, the term 'Engrish' is thought to be more neutral and [...] can be applied to humorous misuse of English from any country, not necessarily Japan."
For your perusal: http://www.u-keiai.ac.jp/issn/menu/ronbun/no15/u050708_ikeshima.pdf
It is actually fairly interesting, going so far as to point out that, since the number of non-native English speakers has begun to surpass that of native speakers, it is perhaps possible to consider Engrish a form of English dialect.
You are probably right. I just don't understand the rules.
Lol. No need. To be honest I do not care. You guys just happened to be discussing it after I watched it. I can understand that it is a fantasy game like any other and certain rules apply.
Post a Comment