 |
| Eddings rules Sogard made the third out at 3B. |
This is Doug Edding (88)'s second ejection of 2013.
Doug Eddings now has 8 points in the UEFL (4 + 2 MLB + 2 Y = 8).
Dana DeMuth now has 8 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (7 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 8).
This is the 130th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 62nd Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Athletics' 6th ejection of 2013, 1st in the AL West (OAK 6; TEX 3; LAA 2; SEA 1; HOU 0).
This is Bob Melvin's 4th ejection of 2013 and first since May 14, 2013 (DJ Reyburn; QOC = Correct).
This is Doug Eddings' first ejection since July 7, 2013 (B.J. Upton; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: Houston Astros vs. Oakland Athletics, 8/14/13
Video: Barnes throws out Sogard to the dismay of Oakland; Melvin tossed in efficient fashion (HOU)
Video: After inches-close double play to end the frame, Melvin argues and is tossed by, "Guess who!" (OAK)
Related Video: Earlier in the game, Melvin disputes a safe call from Eddings at second (pulled foot; OAK)
Guess who? I'm going to guess the guy who nailed both calls.
ReplyDeleteNailed BOTH calls? I haven't seen a replay that clearly shows he nailed the last call. But it was so close I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But the earlier call that Melvin argued was CLEARLY incorrect, especially from the second angle. Eddings said his foot left the bag, which it didn't; plus, the ball was in the hand long enough for the out to be recorded. I will give Eddings credit for not going into his usual histrionics.
ReplyDeleteThe call at 3rd was close, but I think it was right. The earlier call at 2nd was spot on and easy. Bobbled the ball and was off the bag (way off the bag) by the time he got control of the ball. Slam dunk.
ReplyDeleteAnd the ejection was also easy. "Can you get 1 call right" BOOM. Outta here.
Call at 2B was a clear miss. Caught barehanded with foot on the bag & relayed to 1B for the out... Likely missed because it was caught barehanded. Melvin wanted to go, and knew what he was doing, too.
ReplyDeleteCall at 3b was close. My question is, was this a blown rotation? Eddings was not set when he made the call & seemed slow to get ahead of the play.
He bobbled the ball at 2B. Didn't have control until his foot was way off the bag. Kind of an easy call actually.
ReplyDeleteBecause if you knew the mechanics of a 4 man system, the PU NEVER rotates to 3rd base with a runner on 2nd base. SO, why don't you learn something about umpiring before criticizing the PU for doing something correctly. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that it was a bobble...looked to me like he had control and was changing his grip for the throw. Not easy, IMO, but I guess that's why they call them judgement calls.
ReplyDeleteSafe call at 2B is clearly the correct call. Yes, the ball makes contact with the second baseman's hand while he still has his foot on the bag. However, the question is whether 2B has CONTROL of ball -- it's not a matter of holding the ball "long enough". By the time 2B gains control of the ball he is well off the bag. That may have been why Eddings made the indication he was off the bag. He got the call right - whether it was by chance or on purpose.
ReplyDeletePU doesn't rotate with a runner in scoring position. But it seems to me that a reverse rotation would make sense: U1 takes the tag at 2B and plays on the BR (if the ball is dropped), allowing U2 to rotate to 3B ahead of any play on R2. PU can watch the BR touch at 1B. Not something I'd recommend for amateur umpires, but MLB guys should be able to handle it (though I don't know if this is the recommended MLB mechanic). Anybody who went to pro school care to comment? Just trying to learn.
ReplyDeleteThis is a reverse rotation. There's no reason that Eddings needed to stand at second and then try to fly to third to get that call. He can see the tag from a position much closer to third.
ReplyDeleteHe made a great call, but the goal should've been to be stopped/set to make that call at third.
And the call at second was obviously correct, at least as far as I'm concerned. Whether the mechanic given is a bobble or off the bag is not important -- he didn't have control of the ball while in contact with the base.
The fielder bobbled the ball in the play at second and didn't control it while touching the base. I'm not sure if Eddings had that and also had him off the base, but R1 was safe either way.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a blown rotation. With R2 only and U3 going out on the ball, U2 has the tag at second and the runner into third base.
And I forgot: Watch the play again. Eddings is stopped when the tag is applied and takes another step toward the play while signaling the out.
ReplyDeleteSeriously .... And Without sarcasm ... How can you legitimately bobble a ball with your BARE HAND ?
ReplyDeleteWhy would Eddings signal off the base if in fact he called the safe because of the 'bobble' (no control) ... I was always taught you make signal the appropriate reason for the 'safe' call ...
ReplyDeleteChallenge. I just don't see any conclusive evidence that he was tagged prior to his hand getting to the bag.
ReplyDeleteThanks. So does MLB recommend a reverse rotation on this play, or does U2 have the tag at 2B and play at 3B? Or is it up to each crew?
ReplyDeleteWe'll have to agree to disagree on the play at second. I think Callaspo had possession of the ball while in contact with the bag, then shifted his grip for the throw.
The reverse rotation is U1 taking R1 or the BR to second and U2 taking R2 (or R1 of the ball falls) to third.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any mechanic where U2 doesn't have the tag of R2 on a caught ball from second. U1 has the retouch of R1, U2 has the retouch of R2, U3 went out, PU would have a tag of an R3.
Really? You need to ask this question?
ReplyDeleteDo you have any conclusive evidence he wasn't tagged?
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any conclusive evidence that either event occurred; I think a ruling of "Inconclusive" is plausible here, but I don't play the league, so I am *not* calling for a challenge. Just an observation.
ReplyDeletePerfect example of why having an umpire out on every ball trouble or no trouble is counter productive and in some cases ends up hurting the crew. That was a reasonably easy catch. It wasn't a trouble ball. If U2 gets catch/no catch and tag up at second than U3 is in a great position to see that play taking it outside in. I know some will argue that it was hit fairly deep and maybe it was but U3 can read that and if he reads can of corn it gets passed to U2 in the middle. MLB (not the umpires or their supervisors) thinks it looks pretty to have umpires running around everywhere even if they are running themselves out of position in some instances to see plays. I think Eddings got it right and I would have whacked him out too. I didn't see where Eddings was standing to line up the tag up. I would assume he was as far toward second as you could be given where the ball was hit which makes it a foot race to see that play at third. It's a bastard play because of how the flyball coverage is assigned. I understand the mechanics of the wingmen having flyball coverage for trouble balls but why run yourself and your crew out of position when it really doesn't require a wingman to go out on the play? I'm sure I've opened myself up to some arguments but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhy cant they just do a normal rotation with PU taking 3B and then 1B umpire watching the touch of first and then head to the plate? Or if it is a reverse rotation why was the 1b ump at 2B and Eddings could of been at 3rd a lot sooner. By they way I think Eddings got both calls correct.
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon.
ReplyDeletewith runners in scoring position the plate umpire ALWAYS stays home in MLB mechanics.... On this play everyone is where they are supposed to be. 3rd base umpire goes out 1nd base umpire has play into third and 1st base umpire has b/r into 2nd.... Pretty standard. You just don't want the PU on the move consistently.
ReplyDeleteThanks, it makes sense but does U3 really even need to go out on something like this or are they told to go out no matter what?
ReplyDeleteThat is a rotation with a runner on first only. There is no need for that rotation with a runner in scoring position.
ReplyDeleteWith none on or one runner on and a fly ball in their area, they will go out. They only read the ball with multiple runners on.
ReplyDeleteit is mandatory to out on this play..... Sometimes there might be shading in which the ball takes the centerfielder to left a little bit (on a routine play) and the 1st base umpire goes out. The reason this is to keep an umpire ahead of the play.
ReplyDeleteSo give me a serious answer .... Im
ReplyDeleteHere to learn
On that play at 2nd... When is a runner or batter runner considered OUT on a force play ?
ReplyDeleteJust curious for this situation, preface with I've never done a 4-man system.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't it make more sense for U3 go out for catch/no catch, U2 get the tag up, PU go to third, U1 go home after watching BR tag 1b (if it turns out to be no catch). and U2 staying at 2b if R2 fakes tag and gets picked off going back to 2b or gets in run down.
With runners in scoring position, the plate umpire stays home. So the other umpires reverse rotate.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is that Eddings read the tag/advance late and got in a footrace. There's no reason he couldn't have lined up the catch and tag in a better position between second and third and gotten to third well in advance of the plate. Regardless, he got it right.
I'm fine with the call and subsequent ejection. What I Am not fine with is Eddings not giving Callaspo the call in the 5th when it was clearly an out. But, shit happens.
ReplyDeleteNo way he "nailed" the call in the 5th. He blew that one. There was no bobble and no foot off the bag, Callaspo nailed it. Not Eddings.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that there was a bobble. It looked like a clear out to me. Callaspo nailed that one, not Eddings!
ReplyDeleteThis replay has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
ReplyDeleteUmpire Fantasy Ejection League - Proof positive that universal replay will not make anyone happier about baseball.
ReplyDeleteI don't know a single human being that can wrap the palm of his hand around the baseball - the fingers are what really control the ball if you're making the barehand play. I see a lot of palm in Callaspo's play at 2nd and no fingers at all until he's well off the bag. Well officiated by Mr. Eddings.
ReplyDeleteThe play at third isn't conclusive to me, but the throw beats him and it's a perfect throw. If the benefit of the doubt is going ANYWHERE, it's going to the fielder.
It's PUFF PUFF PASS guys. There is no way the first call is correct. Close, not not correct.
ReplyDeleteSRB, you and most of the other folks here are absolutely correct. It's close but not that close, and he is OUT. The bare hand aspect must have thrown Eddings off. But, he clearly blew that one.
ReplyDeleteI'd wager that you CANNOT bobble a ball that size with your bare hand (physics). You'd either catch it, watch it glance off your hand into the OF, or you simply drop it. I am not sure how you could possibly bobble a ball that size with a bare hand.
ReplyDeleteI'd toss the runner for wearing those stupid looking glasses.
ReplyDeleteIn re: 130 Eddings 2;
ReplyDeleteAfter review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed unanimously in a 5-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Five Appeals Board members voted to uphold the Original Ruling.
Majority Opinion, Turducken:
UEFL Rule 7, Section 1, Article B: "In the instance of an exhaustive disputed or inconclusive Quality of Correctness, the Quality of Correctness shall revert to reflect the call made on the field as correct." Translation: Call inconclusive reverts to correct. I vote to uphold.
Concurring Opinion, RichMSN:
If I had to make a call from the limited replays I've seen, I'd call the runner out, too.
Nothing more conclusive that I've seen -- I'm voting to uphold.
Concurring Opinion, BT_Blue, joined by yawetag:
Due to the lack of any new information or videos, I have to concur that this call would be inconclusive at best. Thus, I too will vote to Uphold.
Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.
Confirm: tmac, RichMSN, yawetag, BT_Blue, Turducken
Uphold: -
Overturn: -
Defer: -
Abstain: Gil (Posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment)
I don't see how changing the grip to make an accurate throw is seen as not controlling the ball, especially when the player made sure to be off the base before changing his grip. Here is how I see the action developping:
ReplyDelete1.) Control the ball, making sure the foot is on the base (0:46);
2.) Remove the foot, still not changing the grip, still in control of the baseball, not bobbling it at any point (0:48);
3.) Getting ready to throw the ball, changing the grip (0:49);
4.) Throwing the ball (0:50).
Of course, during the action, this just took a split second, and I can't really blame the umpire for missing this one, but what I can't stand is guys saying it's "clearly" the correct call (nobody here seems to agree with the benefit of slow replay, how is that "clearly"?). For me, the call was incorrect, and it definitely was not "clearly" the correct call.