 |
| Sveum insults DeMuth's conduct and is tossed. |
This is Dana DeMuth (32)'s first ejection of 2013.
Dana DeMuth now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 + 2 + 2 = 4).
Crew Chief Dana DeMuth now has 6 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (5 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 6).
*Sveum appears not to argue the pitch but DeMuth's behavior in simply watching Ransom walk away after Cody throws his bat and helmet to the side. Pursuant to precedent established by the UEFL Appeals Board in In re 011 Guccione 1 [also of Sveum], the reason for ejection is Ball/Strikes, thus correct.
This is the 101st ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 47th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Cubs' 4th ejection of 2013, 2nd in the NL Central (PIT 6; CHC 4; STL 3; MIL 2; CIN 0).
This is Dale Sveum's 4th ejection of 2013 and first since June 17, 2013 (DJ Reyburn; QOC = N).
This is Dana DeMuth's first ejection since July 1, 2011 (David Price, Elliot Johnson; QOC = Y).
Wrap: Chicago Cubs vs. Arizona Diamondbacks, 7/23/13
Video: Sveum ejected after arguing DeMuth's conduct in watching Ransom throw equipment (CHC)
10 comments :
So Sveum thinks umpires shouldn't be allowed to look at his batters? Huh?
Challenge. The precedent set forth in that decision was 6-5-C-3. The punch out prompted the discussion.
Going to be reviewed either way. Someone will claim that his actions were his actions.
Nose to nose argument, and then all of a sudden both walk away smiling. I think Sveum said "Ok, thanks for the argument, that was big league!" "You're welcome Dale, see you in the bar.", lol.
This is one of those arguments where you really wish you could know what they were saying.
So he gets ejected because he doesn't like the way the umpire looked at his player? What, was he disappointed that the batter was not immediately ejected for tossing equipment? This may be Sveum's stupidest ejection of his career. To get ejected by Dana Demuth? [Cue the Miz's "Really?" schtick]
Maybe they were discussing the Zimmerman verdict...
This appeal has been summarily affirmed by the UEFL Appellate Interpreter.
Upon further review, the Interpreter finds that the reason for ejection is balls/strikes and QOC is correct. The Interpreter cites the Board's opinion in 011 Guccione 1:
"UEFL Rule 6-5-c-3, states, in part: 'A reason for ejection of Unsportsmanlike Conduct-NEC is only assigned when no other reason for ejection may be assessed.'
This is a chicken before the egg ejection. The reason for Sveum's ejection may be questionable, but under the provision of the rule, the ball/strike call prompted the discussion, and hence can not meet the definition for Unsportsmanlike-NEC."
As Turducken wrote in the Majority Opinion above, under the provision of the rule, reason is balls/strikes and does not meet the definition for Unsportsmanlike-NEC, even though the argument seems to pertain to DeMuth's act of looking at a person on the field.
Summarily affirmed and reason changed: "Unsportsmanlike-NEC to Balls/Strikes."
"Irrecusable" nature summarily changed to Quality of Correctness of "Correct."
I want to challenge this. I think there is clear and convincing evidence that Sveum is not arguing balls and strikes here.
The result of a challenge may not be challenged. See UEFL Rule 9-2
Finality and the Overwhelming Exemption
SECTION 2. All decisions regarding challenges shall be final unless overwhelming evidence surfaces to overturn the challenged decision. This overwhelming clause challenge may only be initiated by the appellate interpreter of the UEFL.
Post a Comment