 |
| Joe Girardi discusses Everitt's ejection. |
This is Mike Everitt (57)'s second ejection of 2013.
Mike Everitt now has 2 points in the UEFL (4 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = 2).
Crew Chief Tim Welke now has 6 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (6 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 6).
This is the 98th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 44th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Gardner was 0-2 in the contest.
This is the Yankees' 2nd ejection of 2013, 5th in the AL East (TOR 8; BAL, BOS, TB 4; NYY 2).
This is Brett Gardner's 1st ejection of 2013 and first since July 21, 2010 (Paul Emmel; QOC = U).
This is Mike Everitt's first ejection since July 4, 2013 (John Buck; QOC = Y).
Wrap: New York Yankees vs. Boston Red Sox, 7/19/13
Video: Gardner fires his helmet into the ground after being called out on strikes and is tossed (NYY)
35 comments :
I'm a big yankees fan and a big Brett Gardner fan but that was stupid by Gardner. You have a thin bench the yankees had just Almonte making their bench even thinner.
So the ejection should be for arguing the 2-1 pitch, not the called strike 3?
The reason for ejection is written as the final call of the AB since this is a post-at bat ejection, even though QOC for this ejection is tied to a called pitch from earlier in the AB.
Reference UEFL Rule 6-5-c-4: "The Quality of Correctness of a post-at bat ejection, if arguing balls/strikes or some other call which occurs during the at bat immediately preceding ejection, shall be judged in relation to the holistic effect of the argued call(s)/pitch(es). This rule further declares that the argued call(s) during this preceding at bat must be against the ejected person (or his team) and this call must have realistically resulted in a different outcome of the individual at bat. If balls/strikes and it is possible that one or more pitches has been argued, the argued call shall be listed as the final callable pitch of the at-bat against the ejected person (or his team), even though Quality of Correctness may be governed by Rule 6-5-c related to an earlier call during the at-bat."
Spiking helmet / throwing equipment in disgust over a call = automatic ejection.
That said, strike three was down the middle and it had the height, that needs to be a protect the plate swing at the very least, a solid base hit at the most - that's a very hittable pitch, I mean it is a fastball after all and not from a Mariano Rivera or Clayton Kershaw type pitcher either - New York did after all score two runs by that point in this game...
Don't throw your damn helmet, Brett! Arguing balls and strikes (even when it is NOT a strike like in this case) will get you nowhere. While it was not a strike, you can't let one that close go by with 2 strikes.
I agree it was hittable and too close to let go, but it was below his knees. We were sitting on the 3B line and had a pretty good view of the height. But again, too damn close to let go with 2 strikes.
I want to challenge this
Gardner's reaction was completely out of line here, if you think a call was bad then say something to the umpire. Firing your helmet in the fashion he did is never acceptable behavior and will/should always result in an ejection. That being said, Everitt did still miss a call in the at bat and therefore is still accountable for the bad call.
The Rule itself cannot be challenged during the season. Keep this ejection in mind and bring it up for review at the post-season Rules Summit.
What about the call. From my POV I thought it looked like a strike
This appeal has been summarily denied by the UEFL Appellate Interpreter pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule). The Appellate Interpreter finds the following:
(1) The 2-1 pitch was conclusively associated with a px value of -1.018.
(2) A px value less than 0.768 indicates the pitch may be considered a strike.
(3) Such value between 0.768 and 0.935 indicates a borderline pitch.
(4) Such value greater than 0.935 indicates the pitch may be deemed a ball.
(5) All ranges above pertain to absolute value.
(6) Clear, convincing and conclusive evidence to the contrary has not surfaced.
(7) The Kulpa and Miller Rules were placed in the UEFL Rules to objectively frame balls and strikes Quality of Correctness as it relates to the Official Baseball Rules definition of strike zone (Rule 2.00 [Strike Zone]). Because Pitch f/x is on record as having accuracy to within one-half of one inch, the technology was adopted and this margin-of-error accounts for the borderline range mentioned above in line (3).
(8) Therefore, the appeal is summarily denied. Certiorari denied.
Precedent cited: 087, 088 Hernandez 3, 4; 059, 060 Iassogna 2, 3; 049 Gonzalez 1; 007 Fletcher 1 [2013]; 125 Campos 5; 115 Nelson 3; 092 Everitt 1, 057, 058 Davison 2, 3; 008, 009 Gibson 1, 2 [2012].
How can this even be challenged? I thought we went over this with PFX - the system is right unless it's proven that it is significantly off.
Fans always ask why are players getting ejected for throwing equipment, shouldn't it just be an equipment fine, etc. Let me make it really simple.
A: Throwing gear is an equipment violation when it violates decorum rules MLB has in place with the Players Association only.
B: Throwing a helmet, bat, glove, etc. IN REACTION to an umpire's call or that may be interpreted as showing disgust with anything to do with an umpire's judgment or decision is an outright ejection because now it violates MLB Rules independent of the MLBPA union.
Strike three looked good to me, a real pitchers pitch. NESN had it at the bottom of the zone. Paint.
Quick thinking by Mike to turn off the microphone as illustrated in the UEFL picture above. Very nice.
Challenge - the ejection was for spiking the helmet and should be irrecusable. No words were exchanged before the ejetion
this should be a Irrecusable ejection
No brainer on that ejection...
But he threw the helmet because of the call. If it had been ball 4 the helmet would not have been thrown therefore throwing the helmet is a form of showing disgust over the call and therefore the ejection was directly attributed to the called strike or culmination of strikes called in the at bat. There is really nothing to challenge here.
The rule that would allow this ejection to be considered Irrecusable was proposed last season and lost.
Even though the incorrectly called pitch was the 2-1 pitch this ejection
is still an incorrect call no matter how you look at it. What you need
to realize is if the 2-1 pitch had been correctly called ball 3 instead
of strike 2 then Gardner would have had a 3-1 count instead of a 2-2
count and the very next pitch would have been ball 4 instead of ball 3.
So, had the 2-1 pitch been called correctly there never would have been a
3-2 pitch and Gardner would have been walked as opposed to being called
out on strikes.
No ejection, but looks like a blown call cost PUIG an OF assist...And a beauty at that!
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/blown-call-costs-yasiel-puig-assist-phenominal-280-090324953.html
Two observations today: (1) Paul Emmel does not have numbers on his shirt in the BOS/NYY game. (2) Hirschbeck is wearing the old school majestic jersey (white piping in collar and sleeves) in PIT/CIN. Added to Culbreth and Scott also wearing this old school shirt this year, Davis wearing Conroy's jersey (#98) one game, and Hernandez wearing the snapback hat....it seems like a lot of uniform violations in MLB this year. I don't remember this ever being the case in the past. Looks sloppy.
Challenge has already been denied and exhausted.
Cert. denied.
However, you don't know necessarily how the at-bat would have proceeded if the count were 3-1. It's just a big "what if" game at that point.
My guess is they probably had issues in the airport and that was there only option. Also not that big of deal. How many normal people do you think actually noticed?
Yes, but in a 3-1 hitters count a strikeout is a far less likely end result than it is in a 2-2 count. This is especially true with a man on second and 1st base open.
Both Emmel and Hirschbeck were properly uniformed on Friday, in the same cities.
I watch the umpires as closely as anyone, but dude....your OCD meds need to be adjusted.
Gardner and Tim Welke discussed it at yesterday's game:
http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=28989751&query=&game_pk=348194
Being fairly new to the site and not intently familiar with the rules here I am wondering if it makes a difference if the ejection was for spiking the helmet vs arguing balls/strikes? I mean, if he were arguing balls/strikes then I doubt he would have been jacked so quickly. I would say, then, that he was ejected for behavior/sportsmanship rather than arguing.
Reason for Ejection pertains to the call leading to ejection; whenever possible, Reason for Ejection is associated with QOC. The behavior/sportsmanship argument as pertains to throwing equipment in disgust of a call (making such ejections NEC) failed during the 2012 Rules Summit in favor of preserving the current format, which is attributing a QOC to these ejections.
History on the rationale for QOC'ing a throwing of equipment-related reason for ejection:
In 020, 021, 022 Timmons 1, 2, 3, the Appeals Board established that "Quality of Correctness does not pertain to the character of an ejection, it pertains to the accuracy of the call leading to ejection. This aforementioned principle is key to QOC determination."
The theory was put to the test on appeal in Ejections 012, 013 Fairchild 1, 2 and was affirmed with yawetag's Majority Opinion: "It's obvious the throwing of the equipment is based on the strike call. There is no other reason Ross threw his bat. Therefore, I've upheld the original ruling."
Jeremy concurred, adding, "The ejection can be directly attributed to an argument of a strike three call. It is clear the bat flip and abuse of equipment from Cody Ross was over a disagreement of the strike three call. It is quite evident the strike three call is correct, therefore I elect to Confirm the ruling of a "correct" QOC and the reason for ejection as "Balls & Strikes."
UEFL Rule 6-5-c-3: "...A reason for ejection of Unsportsmanlike Conduct-NEC is only assigned when no other reason for ejection may be assessed."
Thanks, Gil.
Thanks for your insightful contribution!
Seemed like a rather simple ejection to me.
Post a Comment