 |
| Murphy's maximum bat extension: Swing or not? |
This is Phil Cuzzi (10)'s second ejection of 2013.
This is Tom Hallion (20)'s fourth ejection of 2013.
Phil Cuzzi now has -4 points in the UEFL (-2 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = -4).
Tom Hallion now has 6 points in the UEFL (6 Previous + 2 MLB + -2 Incorrect Call [Crewmate] = 6).
Crew Chief Tom Hallion now has 5 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (5 + 0 Incorrect Call = 5).
These are the 137th and 138th ejections of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 64th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the 61st player ejection of 2013. Prior to ejection, Russell's line was 0.2 IP, ER, HR.
This is the Cubs' 5th/6th ejection of 2013, 2nd in the NL Central (PIT 8; CHC 6; STL 5; MIL 3; CIN 0).
This is Dale Sveum's 5th ejection of 2013 and first since July 24, 2013 (Dana DeMuth; QOC = Correct).
This is James Russell's first career MLB ejection.
This is Phil Cuzzi's first ejection since April 21, 2013 (Ryan Braun; QOC = Incorrect).
This is Tom Hallion's first ejection since May 20 (LaTroy Hawkins, Terry Collins; QOC = Irrecusable).
Wrap: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Chicago Cubs, 8/18/13
Video: After striking out in the seventh, Murphy walks away as Sveum barks for an early shower (CHC)
Video: Sveum complains about his ejection post-game, calls Cuzzi's the worst K ruling "ever" (0:30)
33 comments :
Not the greatest angle but still that looks like Donnie Murphy never swung at the pitch
not possible for an umpire to be right or wrong in a check swing because there is no definition of a swing. This a agree or disagree call.
Doesn't matter if he swung or not. Was the an attempt to swing.Pure judgement call.
Joe Girardi just got tossed by Brian O'Nora after Ryan Dempster hit Alex Rodriguez
Close call, sprots attention, joe girardi ejection!!!! Could be more coming as far as ejections brawls. I think it safe to say the rivelry is back, stand by Ccs. Brawl maybe. I would say incorrect call how is that warnings?!
Irrecusable per UEFL rule. OBR 8.02(d) is also posted in the corresponding thread for reference.
MLB Ejection 139: Brian O'Nora (1; Joe Girardi)
...what language is this?
Does anyone think that onora made the wrong. Call so now it will get worse as far as outcome?
Seriously, what language is this? And have you considered commenting on the correct post?
Yankees play redsox 6 more times, woot woot wow gonna get exciting, 3 away, 3 home
See the part at the top of the page where it DOESN'T say Yankees or Red Sox? You're in the wrong spot.
@baba cop? What language is this? Stab a knife in my back! Won't you?! Wtheck I got caught in the moment. You don't like what I said tough luck, my opinion move on with your life dude
I don't have any problem with what you said, mostly because I have no idea what you said. It's been quite a bit since the last time I saw someone massacre the English language so thoroughly.
The language of WTF
It's unfortunate that Cuzzi did not simply appeal. Once he calls that strike that's that. I understand why the Cubs management was so upset, but seriously, the score was 6-1 or whatever it was. Do some yelling and let it go. Focus on scoring runs with your last 6 outs.
And seriously, guys, I don't understand the grammar gestapo shit. It must be an inside joke or something I missed on another set of posts. =-)
Mrs. Krabappel: Embiggens? I never heard that word before moving to Springfield.
Mrs. Hoover: I don't understand why, it's a perfectly cromulent word.
If I had a stake in this so called league, I would challenge this, because by rule, this is a pure judgement call and by rule cannot be argued.
Therefore, this type of ejection should be irrecusable
And you would be wrong. Judgments can be incorrect, after all.
Then enlighten me Rich, what and where is the rule that defines what constitutes a swing versus a checked swing!
Who cares? It's clearly a reasonableness test made by anyone watching this -- if it was close, I'd be happy to uphold/confirm the call made by the umpire.
Reductio ad absurdum -- if the bat hadn't left the shoulder of the batter and Cuzzi ruled it an attempt -- should we consider that call correct, as well?
There isn't a person (umpire or otherwise) out there who thinks Cuzzi actually got this right.
Well opinions vary, and Phil Cuzzi's was the only one that mattered in this situations.
Again, I ask for you to point to the rule that specifically states what constitutes a swing and a checked swing. Don't give me your opinion, give me FACTS!!! The fact that your response as a "Board Member" was who cares tells a lot about you not being a follower of the rules. Where in the rule book does it say you only have to follow some of the rules? You can't just rule how you think it should be. You have to rule how it is written. Reason why it clearly states that in 9.02(c) Comment, that you cannot argue a check swing, because it is CLEARLY umpire judgement that is beyond rebuke!!
It's sad that a League that claims to be a follower of the rules, can't seem to follow the rules on this.
Actually, if you look at the boxes checked above, you are wrong - 3 people think he got it right
I get that this is a common statement, but I don't agree that it's true. It's not a strike if the batter didn't "strike at" the ball. Often times that is a matter of judgement, and can't be objectively determined. But, this is a time when an objective decision can be made, upon video review, that the batter did not strike at the pitch.
Wow. Being a grammar nazi on the Internet is rather lame.
Ditto regarding the grammar Gestapo. This isn't honors English so I don't give a shit if I use a period instead of a semicolon. Many people post trying to use there phone which isn't always the easiest thing. Words get misspelled or capitalized, who cares? Frankly, nothing much is usually said by the grammar nazis unless they lose their ass in a discussion than they resort to "haha, you spelled 'the' wrong." Get over it.
Those people must be watching a different clip.
Perhaps, but at least I'm intelligent enough to be able to write properly.
Still lame. And rather NPD of you.
Not denying it's lame. Also not denying that I have no clue what "NPD" is supposed to stand for.
No, RichMSN, those people ACTUALLY KNOW THE RULES!!! They don't pretend!! I think it's funny you can't even admit that you're WRONG about the rule!!
Now I'm Man enough to admit, that the OBR, rule is vague and ambiguous. It does not define, what actually constitutes a swing or checked swing, unlike the NCAA rule. SO, because of that, the calling official must judge as he sees it, right or wrong, his decision on this is his judgement. And Rule 9.02(c) Comment, CLEARLY states that a check swing call CANNOT be argued.
Want the rule changed then contact the Rules Committee and request it!!! I'm sure an Umpire Hater like Sandy Alderson will listen to you!!
I couldn't possibly care about the rule and the implications. I've been an umpire for over 30 years and I work NCAA baseball, so I know the objective criteria in NCAA baseball and the wholly subjective criteria in professional baseball.
I just know this about this league -- if the play is challenged and it comes to the appeal board, the members of the appeal board, me included, will decide whether that's an attempt or not.
There is precedent for the UEFL calling a check swing ruling incorrect and I have no problem with that.
I gotta say, not much of an attempt.
Bat position has nothing to do with it. Intent to hit the ball. IMHO he didn't "offer" at the pitch. So? That's one strike closer to going home.
Why it's the correct call
Post a Comment