 |
| Sveum confronts Barksdale after his ejection. |
This is Lance Barksdale (23)'s first ejection of 2013.
Lance Barksdale now has -2 points in the UEFL (0 + 2 + -4 = -2).
Crew Chief Gary Cederstrom now has 3 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (3 + 0 Incorrect Call = 3).
*The Board issued a unanimous decision, 6-0-0, affirming the call's incorrectness.
This is the 149th ejection of 2013 MLB season.
This is the 71st Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Cubs' 7th ejection of 2013, 2nd in the NL Central (PIT 8; CHC 7; STL 5; MIL 3; CIN 0).
This is Dale Sveum's 6th ejection of 2013 and first since August 18, 2013 (Phil Cuzzi; QOC = Incorrect).
This is Lance Barksdale's first ejection since May 1, 2011 (Charlie Manuel; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: Chicago Cubs vs. Los Angeles Dodgers, 8/28/13
Video: After an initial complaint, Sveum barks at Barksdale after a foul, earning the early shower (CHC)
47 comments :
This is far from inconclusive. It was nearly a complete swing. I guess no one came to MLBs rising star strike out though. This is the 2nd brutal check swing the Cubs have had in as many weeks.
http://gyazo.com/cee0f63436231e1fc45930dd8478a91f
this is clearly a swing
you had to freeze frame it
Caption should be "Sveum barks at Barksdale after his ejection."
Not according to the umpire it was not a swing
Replays are inconclusive? Are you kidding me? There's no doubt that was a swing. Even without seeing the side angle -- the live view from the center field camera leaves very little doubt.
I love that line, "Not a whole lot of listening going on."
I was surprised Danley didn't even call that a swing.
It's good to know the umpire has nothing better to do than to stare into the dugout. Maybe MLB should save themselves some money and cut one since 4 is apparently not needed...
First, the incorrect Layne description. Now, determining that there's not enough evidence to rule on this? I have lost ALL faith in this website. Such a pro-umpire bias.
BillUnit for Appeals Board '014
How about waiting for the appeals board before grandstanding and complaining?
It's good to know the manager has nothing better to do than to yell at the first base umpire. Maybe the Cubs should save themselves some money since Sveum apparently is not needed...
Initial post determines call was correct: People freak out and want the Appeals Board to rule on it.
Initial post sends call to the Appeals Board: People freak out.
What do you want? Seriously, please tell me.
If a managers utility was limited to performing during a game then you might have a point
Original comment: Umpire was doing something he shouldn't be doing. Guess he isn't needed.
My comment: Manager is doing something that he shouldn't be doing. Guess he isn't needed.
What's the issue here?
Just because he took a screen of it doesn't mean he needed to freeze it to see whether or not it was a swing.
BAPACop, do not mince words. I could careless about the Q.O.C., but to state that the "value judgment reflects the Q.O.C." is silly and represents a pro-umpire bias. I present the sentence before the determination: "Replays indicate Satin's glove did not possess the baseball prior to Freeman's right foot making contact with first base." This is an incorrect statement. F3 had secure possession of the ball prior to BR contacting first base. There's at least three other comments of a similar nature. I get the nature of the DiMuro Rule -- and it should be revised in the off-season. There's a window that elapses; great. But a repeat argument from separate players [i.e., a manager argues and then a player argues] over an incorrect call should not be awarded points under any circumstance unless extenuating [i.e., video use, etc.].
Even in the past where the DiMuro rule was invoked, the correct value judgment presided. Not doing so is inappropriate.
This "inconclusive" ruling is an abject joke. I [and many others] could tell that Puig did not check his swing in real-time [from the CF angle, no less]. The slow-motion replay only confirmed this. This call could have been made instantaneously. Sending this to the appeals board adheres to the notion that Barksdale may have nailed this call, which, in absolute reality, he did not [at all].
So, what do I want "exactly"? I want the Layne information to be corrected and I want this to be ruled incorrect.
Don't get me wrong, either. There are perfectly competent people on the board [i.e., tmac, RichMSN, Turducken to name a few], but some of them have to go and will be voted out at the end of the season.
You mention the Layne post and then say that this one is obvious. You're absolutely right. But what you're missing is that whoever wrote the Layne post seemed fairly certain that it was obvious as well. This Inconclusive ruling is probably a direct attempt to avoid something like that happening again. And we're still looking at everyone wanting the Layne ruling to go to the Board, and then you come here freaking out that a ruling went to the Board. This will not be the first incredibly obvious call to go to the Appeals Board this year, and it probably won't be the last. I'm also not sure why you're bringing the individual members of the Appeals Board into this discussion at all.
The Layne text won't be corrected, it seems. I've already made more than one post on that topic myself. That's something that hopefully won't happen again; if no one else does I'm going to be proposing a rule at the Rules Summit requiring that all write-ups directly reflect the QOC.
anybody else see the player on the cubs bench flick barksdale off as sveum walked out onto the field?
Yeah, of course he had to freeze frame it! That's the point of a still image. He's proving what the video clearly shows! The level of intelligence in these conversations is really declining.
Not very Catholic of Samardieikvzuljgorilla to flip the bird at Lance.
Barky seemed to have a lot to say seeing as he hasn't had an EJ in over 2 years...looks like built-up anger.
Bapa cop makes the stupidest comments of all time. He's an umpire panty sniffer. Umpires are never wrong in his eyes. Don't waste your breath.
Dale's trying to pull a Mike Quade. Lead the league in ejections as cubs manager and then get fired.
What the hell are you talking about. He only agrees with the umpire when there right and doesn't when their wrong.
Where in the video does that happen?
I like what (assumedly Gil) is doing here. If it cannot be determined with ease, allow a group to decide the initial call. Both the Jerry Layne call (140,141) and the Doug Eddings call (130) should have been done this way.
As you said elsewhere on this post, "This Inconclusive ruling is probably a direct attempt to avoid something like that happening again."
I very much agree.
Did you see how Sveum was warned for arguing balls and strikes? He couldn't take the hint and let it go.
Booo-freaking-hooo a check swing gets missed (It's not as obvious as some of you are clamoring on about) and the world comes to an end. Sveum had every chance to let it go and kept going after the foul ball on the next pitch. Quit arguing balls and strikes after the following pitch and maybe you won't get ejected.
I'm tired of the fanboys turning stuff like check swing calls into the end of the world. It's like the game of baseball is ruined for life for them. Guess what? Even your computers and IR can't get check swings right 100 percent of the time.
Someone has issues
The umpire only see it once when you people see a one replay. he 90 feet away. how close is the camera?
read above
Under the rules you cannot agure a call strike swing or non call strike swing now your arguing ball and strike. Grounds for easy ejection
You think the Donnie Murphy "swing" from a few weeks ago didn't factor into it?
Exactly, that's not a swing, but Donnie Murphy's was.
I do not own Barksdale in the league but I'm sick of everyone complaining about the post being wrong. I am going to challenge this because I can't believe it wasn't ruled a swing. Just curious but out of all the people complaining about this call how many of you are actually in the league? I realize the umpire got the call wrong but he was not wrong in ejecting Dale Sveum, which is why I hate negative points for ejections in the first place. Should just be less points, which I've said a bunch of times already.
Challenge.
My mother always taught me that it's rude not to look at someone who is talking to me. If someone is going to bark at me from the dugout, I'm going to look at him.
I'm sorry, but someone has to say it: "You're killin' me, Smalls!"
So you're going to challenge to have it sent to the Appeals Board when it's already going to the Appeals Board?
I was unaware it was being sent to the appeals board. I usually read to see if it was ruled correct or incorrect and then stop reading. This time I didn't even read it because I just read all the comments first. I guess I should of read the ruling 1st. I guess I didn't need to challenge but now I am confused as to why everyone is complaining about the ruling when the board is going to look at it anyway.
That makes two of us.
90 feet away? Since when does the 1st base umpire stand on top of the base? I usually defend the umpire when it's due but I don't think any real umpire (No, not ASA), INCLUDING Lance, can pretend like he didn't miss this one. And why are you bringing up distance anyhow when everybody knows ANGLE is more important? Lance had a much better angle than the camera did and we can still see he offered! The more you talk, the less it proves you know about umpiring. I agree with the ejection 100 % but any idiot can tell that he swung. Let's keep it in reality here. Not every call is going to be correct and if that's how you "umpire", then you can enjoy your assignments and I'll enjoy mine.
Hmm, maybe the tendentious slight you bare is related to the fact that this is, well, a forum for umpires? I'd imagine there is a slight edge given to GOPers on a Republican website (or Fox news for that matter).
For me this one is a no-brainer. He did NOT check his swing. Barksdale erred.
When Sveum leaves dugout. Towards the end of the bench.
In re: 149 Barksdale 1;
After review, the Board has issued the following decision after one round of voting, electing to deem the call incorrect in a unanimous 6-0-0 decision. Six Appeals Board members voted to indicate Quality of Correctness as incorrect.
Therefore, Quality of Correctness is now incorrect.
Correct: -
Incorrect: Gil, tmac, RichMSN, yawetag, BT_Blue, Turducken
Defer: -
Abstain: Jeremy (deployment)
Watching it once, full-speed, from the centerfield camera, I can tell you that had I been working B or C in a two-man crew I would have rung him up. And as a rule I NEVER rule a swing from B or C because of how bad the angle is unless it's really blatant.
paused it, it's at least two fingers he puts up, but full speed...
Post a Comment