 |
| Cederstrom throws Manuel out of the ballgame. |
This is Gary Cederstrom (38)'s first ejection of 2013.
This is Vic Carapazza (85)'s third ejection of 2013.
Gary Cederstrom now has 0 points in the UEFL (0 + 2 MLB + -2 Incorrect Call [Crewmate] = 0).
Vic Carapazza now has 6 points in the UEFL (8 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = 6).
Crew Chief Gary Cederstrom now has 2 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (2 + 0 Incorrect = 2).
*Rollins was ejected for Unsportsmanlike-NEC pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-5-b ("DiMuro Rule").
**Rollins' reason for ejection was overturned to balls/strikes after review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
These are the 115th and 116th ejections of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 50th player ejection of 2013. Prior to ejection, Rollins was 0-4 in the contest.
This is the Phillies' 3rd/4th ejection of 2013, T-3rd in the NL East (ATL 6; WAS 5; NYM, PHI 4; MIA 2).
This is Charlie Manuel's 2nd ejection of 2013 and first since April 25, 2013 (Dan Iassogna; QOC = Correct).
This is Jimmy Rollins' 1st ejection of 2013 and first since August 23, 2004 (Paul Emmel; QOC = N/A).
This is Gary Cederstrom's first ejection since May 22, 2012 (Carlos Ruiz; QOC = Correct).
This is Vic Carapazza's first ejection since July 13, 2013 (Ron Gardenhire; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: Atlanta Braves vs. Philadelphia Phillies, 8/2/13
Video: Brown ruled to have struck out, leading to Manuel's ejection with Rollins close behind (PHI)
Announcing wasn't too bad until all of a sudden "At this point these umpires know that they were wrong." Did the umpires go inside and look at a replay while the cameras weren't looking or something?
ReplyDeleteI am challenging the classification of the Rollins ejection. I agree with BAPAcop that this was not a repeat visit since Rollins never left the dugout to argue the play and there was no new batter or even new pitch before Rollins got ejected. Carapazza's ejection should also be based on the incorrect call and not unsportsmanlike conduct IMO.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that the call is also incorrect on Cedarstrom if Carapazza did indeed appeal to Cedarstrom that would put Cedarstrom as the calling umpire on the appeal and in turn put the incorrect call on him as well. The whole reason Manual took the argument to Cedarstrom is because the appeal was made to him. So I would challenge the Manual ejection of Incorrect [Crewmate] should be an Incorrect call on Cedarstrom because of the appeal to him by Carapazza.
ReplyDeleteChallenge.
ReplyDeleteRollins never left the dugout, nor the field. That's not a second argument.
This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
ReplyDeleteI will second this challenge. The correct assignment of the call should be placed upon U1.
ReplyDeleteIn Ejection 031: Scott Barry (2013), the batter hit a ball to F3; despite PU giving no signal for "foul," U1 called "foul" and pointed to the box - indicating his call that the batted ball hit the batter in the box. Despite this situation typically being PU's call, U1 made the ultimate decision. During the subsequent argument (after PU ejected the defense's manager), the manager began the discussion with PU before PU seemingly indicated U1 had made the call; the manager then took the discussion to U1.
In that case, the UEFL Interpreter determined that upon video review, it was "readily apparent" that U1 had made the call. Thus, U1 was deemed the primary calling umpire while PU was deemed the secondary umpire.
This case is similar. Upon review of the video, reasonable inferences can be made to determine that it is readily apparent that the call was made by U1. Although this is typically PU's call, PU immediately looks toward U1 prior to giving any call; then, during the initial discussion with PU, PU seemingly indicates that he deferred to U1's call on the play.
Thus, U1, not PU, should be the primary calling umpire on this play.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out, as I'm unsure myself which is correct. We assign check swing correctness to the base umpire because the HP umpire appeals. On the other hand, in the case of both check swings and Ejection 31 the base umpire makes the final signal, whereas in this situation HP umpire made the only call.
ReplyDelete"...whereas in this situation only the HP umpire made any sort of indicating mechanic."
ReplyDeleteThat we are aware of. The inference to be made, based upon PU's immediate glance toward first, is that U1 gave the closed fist, down towards the ground.
I agree - this is an interesting challenge on both fronts. One of the few interesting challenges we have seen this season.
How do we know Cederstrom even had anything to help Carapazza?
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be that the announcer, I think it was Chris Wheeler, made the comment thinking the umpires "knew" they were wrong based on the Phillies reaction and how they were hearing it from the whole dugout.
ReplyDeleteObviously that's not always the case.
I agree with everyone that the Manuel EJ should go to Cederstrom. I doubt anyone drafted Carapazza but I'm sure someone deserves negative points for Cederstrom.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of play is a lot harder to see than people realize. The plate umpire can not see anything right in front of the catcher, and its hard for another umpire 100 feet away to see that as well. Just as hard as check swings in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHe has a right to auger that? no not even close those are very hard to call. You cannot agure balls and strike calls. foul-tip is a strike. Its judgment call
ReplyDeleteThis why I get so irradiated with announcers they open there mouths and look like fools. The only people to catch it are the people whom umpire or knows how hard those calls can be.
ReplyDeleteDon't argue balls and strikes! (Even when the umpire fucks up.) If you do, you get tossed. That should be put on a tattoo somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWell, technically they WERE wrong. -)
ReplyDeleteBut I don't understand the point in arguing. I've had similar calls where coaches swear they saw a foul tip (and they between innings they apologize after their player tells them they are wrong!)....
Well in this case there are many indicators that the appeal was made. The first big indicator is that Carapazza took a long look to first base before making a rather delayed call on the play which indicated an appeal to Cedarstrom.
ReplyDeleteThe second indicator came from the announcers who stated several times that Carapazza made an appeal to Cedarstrom. I firmly believe that announcers, even with their sometimes limited knowledge, can correctly tell when an appeal is made.
The third and final indicator came when Manual came out to argue the play. During the argument Carapazza was continually motioning to first base umpire Gary Cedarstrom followed by Manual taking the argument to Gary Cedarstrom which is where the argument got more heated and Manual made some gestures about the play.
So even though Cedarstrom making the closed fist is not shown on the video, there is overwhelming evidence that the appeal was made and Cedarstrom did make the call followed by Carapazza reiterating the call.
he also never argued initially
ReplyDelete"If a manager, coach or player leaves the dugout or his position to argue a call with an umpire, this is considered one team visit and argument"
ReplyDeletewell that doesnt make any sense. If a player goes up to an umpire and starts arguing, and the first/third base coach pulls him away before the manager gets there, wouldn't it then be a repeat visit as well
Vic is one of my secondary umpires.
ReplyDeleteThat sucks. Negative points for you. I just had a bunch of negative points from Allen Porter. So much for winning the UEFL!
ReplyDeleteThey will only be negative if the Rollin's ejection is overturned to be Incorrect and the Manual ejection (and original call) is not overturned to reflect Cederstrom as the calling umpire instead of Carapazza.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Rollins ejection you could argue that since Manual was still arguing from the dugout and Cederstrom followed him towards the dugout the original visit was not yet concluded as the argument was still ongoing between Manual and Cederstrom when Rollins was ejected.
I drafted Vic and am pleased with his points!
ReplyDeleteA good old fashioned shit house, big league style!
ReplyDeleteUmpire errs, player ejected for bitching. Has this ever happened before? ;)
ReplyDeleteReadily apparent [not equal] to reasonable inference
ReplyDeleteReasonable inferences are not a measure of proof; "readily apparent" is.
ReplyDeleteYou use inferences to reach truths; inferences are logical connections.
Measures of proof are levels of truth that are reached through reasoning (inferences being tools of reason).
The two terms are incomparable.
I'm not sure that announcers knowledge base of rules and mechanics is strong enough to use as an indication of what is going on. The other 2 indicators are solid enough, but relying on announcers...not really agreeing with that one.
ReplyDeleteI mainly include the announcers to reinforce what is already being indicated by the other evidence. The two indicators alone without the announcers confirming what you are suspecting is not very strong evidence an appeal was made. On the flip side, the announcers saying an appeal is made without any other indicators would also not be very strong evidence that an appeal was made. In this case however we have the visual indications along with the announcers confirming what is already suspected which combines to make a strong case that an appeal was made.
ReplyDeleteUpdate?
ReplyDeleteEach vote has been recorded. One member remains on vacation, but he owns Carapazza and would be required to abstain.
ReplyDeleteYou appealed the Butler/Baker ejection and used post-game comments but could not look up Rollins' post-game comments to realize that he was mad that Carapazza let McCann throw the ball into the dugout. HE CLEARLY SAW NO VIDEO.
ReplyDelete