 |
| Aviles is thrown out by inches at second base. |
This is Gary Darling (37)'s fourth ejection of 2013.
Gary Darling now has 12 points in the UEFL (8+2+2=12).
Crew Chief Gary Darling now has 3 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (2 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 3).
This is the 160th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 71st player ejection of 2013. Prior to ejection, Aviles entered as a PR and was caught stealing.
This is the Indians' 7th ejection of 2013, 2nd in the AL Central (DET 8; CLE 7; CWS 6; KC, MIN 4).
This is Mike Aviles' 2nd ejection of 2013 and first since June 5 (Tony Randazzo; QOC = Irrecusable).
This is Gary Darling's first ejection since July 24, 2013 (Robin Ventura; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: New York Mets vs. Cleveland Indians, 9/8/13
Video: Aviles called for the second out of the 9th is ejected by Darling vehemently protesting the ruling (CLE)
16 comments :
Wow, that's not even close. I guess Aviles wanted to get tossed rather than face his teammates in the dugout.
I would challenge this ruling. I watched the game live and just after the end of the clip that's posted they showed an angle that looked more up the line and Murphy missed his leg on the first swipe. From where Darling was standing he couldn't see it and the angle that's shown in the clip is the same look Darling would have. If you can find the other look is clearly shows daylight between his glove and Aviles' leg.
More bullshit homer announcing. Its really getting old. He slid right into the tag. Easy call.
I second this challenge. I do not seen the tag.
This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
There was no tag. The angle you are seeing shows the leg in front of the glove. There is an angle that clearly shows daylight between the back of Aviles' leg and Murphy's glove. With the angle shown there could be two feet between them but you wouldn't know it.
I'm not really sure what your looking at but on the replays I can clearly see the movement of the glove indicate that it touched the leg. Watching from both angles you can see the bottom of the glove move as it brushes across the leg.
Like I have said, when you see the angle that shows the play from left center field looking up the play you will see what I am talking about. The glove doesn't touch the leg on the initial swipe contrary to what the angle shown makes it look like.
Gotta love the comments from a poster who uses the NCAA Umpire nick on this site..
Gotta love a poster using NCAA Umpire as a nick on this site and claiming if you look at a slo mo replay from a certain angle it definitely proves a MLB umpire missed a routine call.
Had a little trouble with the first post. Wish there was a preview.
I'd like to see that angle if you could so kindly post it for us and the appeals board to review because until I see it I'm still going to claim he got the tag as I've seen from multiple angles (not just Darling's angle) there is an obvious pushing in of the bottom of the glove as it touches the leg.
Even if he missed him on the first swipe he is still out on the 2nd swipe which clearly gets him. Wish I could see the replay that you see though. So how much did he miss the tag by in your opinion?
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_09_08_nynmlb_clemlb_1&mode=video&c_id=cle
This won't change any minds, but here is the best angle I can find. I can't find the STO angle that they showed during the game. Very frustrating. Take a look at about 0:54.
Your giving me the same angles I've already seen. The angle from behind is fairly obvious and if you look at the front angle between 1:03 and 1:04 you can clearly see the bottom of the glove being pushed up by the leg. There is no other way to explain the movement of the glove, it's basic physics.
You can clearly see the ripple in the uniform before the foot arrives on 2nd base
In re: 160 Darling 4;
After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a unanimous 4-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Four Appeals Board members voted to uphold the Original Ruling.
Per Curiam Opinion:
The angle alluded to in the charge of appeal was not shown on the Indians broadcast "just after the end of the clip"; the Appeals Board was wholly unable to locate a conclusive "more up the line" or any other angle that would be cause for overturning the Original Ruling. The Board was able to view two angles from the Mets broadcast not available within the MLB video, which include a high third base view, wherein the tag attempt is obstructed by Murphy's right leg, and a low first base dugout (camera well closest to home plate) view, wherein the tag attempt is obstructed by Aviles' slide. From the unobstructed angles available, evidence suggests the Original Ruling is accurate.
Concurring Opinion, BT_Blue:
Agreed... no way to really tell so can just go with the original ruling.
Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.
Confirm: -
Uphold: tmac, RichMSN, yawetag, BT_Blue
Overturn: -
Defer: -
Abstain: Gil (Posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment), Turducken (owns Darling)
Post a Comment