 |
| Napoli K's on a called third strike to end the 6th. |
This is Ron Kulpa (46)'s second ejection of 2013.
Ron Kulpa now has 8 points in the UEFL (4 + 2 MLB + 2 Y = 8).
Crew Chief Ted Barrett now has 5 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (4 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 5).
This is the 169th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 76th player ejection of 2013. Prior to ejection, Napoli was 1-3 in the contest with 2 strikeouts.
This is the Red Sox's 9th ejection of 2013, 2nd in the AL East (TOR 12; BOS 9; TB 6; BAL 5; NYY 4).
This is Mike Napoli's first career MLB ejection.
This is Ron Kulpa's first ejection since August 12, 2013 (AJ Pierzynski; QOC = Correct).
Wrap: New York Yankees vs. Boston Red Sox, 9/15/13
Video: After taking Joba's breaking strike two slider for K3, Napoli is ejected for persistent protest (ESPN)
21 comments :
This is Kulpa's 1st ejection in 2013, but you have his last ejection listed as Aug 12, 2013. How can that be?
Kulpa rules...
It was his first ejection SINCE August 12, 2013...
After watching the first two inning of the Rangers-Rays game tonight, Larry Vanover has not been impressive. I really didn't realize how bad he was. I am starting to think he is in the same range of Laz Diaz or Lance Barksdale.
You can see Kulpa pointing after the helmet toss for the fine, then Napoli continues after that - good night! And that pitch looked like it dropped out of the zone somewhere in the middle of the plate. Pretty nasty pitch!
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?&game=gid_2013_09_16_texmlb_tbamlb_1/&innings=yyyyyyyyy&month=09&day=16&year=2013
That's a pretty good plot.
"And Kulpa, in super slow motion, throws him out." Gotta love it.
Sorry but players have every right to argue a pitch that was in the dirt. It was not a good pitch. That pitch was not a strike but was called a strike. You need to really check your eyes if you think it was a strike.
That pitch wasn't even close to the dirt, homer.
A) Players have NO right to argue balls and strikes - according to every rule in the book.
B) I, or any other decent umpire, cares nothing where the pitch was caught - it is ALL about where it may or may not cross the zone. This is also why anything you hear announcers saying about a catcher 'framing a pitch for the umpire' is also a crock.
Is my West check swing challenge being reviewed?
Remember the BillUnit rule - all check swings are going to be automatically challenged by me.
Premise: Check swings are ambiguous.
Yes, I was waiting for a reason (or "charge of appeal"). Ambiguity concerning the check swing call is acceptable for the remainder of the year. This ruling has been challenged and is Under review by the UEFL appeals Board
Who's range are you in?
I am just giving my opinion and even the commentators for the Rays were beginning to question the zone.
How long did the commentators umpire in the bigs?
id say he had a small strike zone but he was somewhat consistent
B) isn't entirely true. The higher you go, the more catchers are expected to receive pitches well to get strikes. "Calling the glove" (Using it to help you with balls/strikes) is taught at every reputable umpire clinic. So, where the catcher catches a pitch may not be extremely important, but how they catch it does matter a lot of the time.
For the record, this pitch was a strike with a human umpire and would be a strike with the mythical computerized strike zone that the fanboys and media hacks want.
Are you seriously debating the PitchFX numbers?
One does not have to have umpired to look at a chart and make logical assumptions. A better thing to do would be to note that the commentators likely based their thoughts about the zone on their heavily-flawed TV strike zone rather than the PitchFX numbers and therefore any judgements they made are likely inaccurate.
If that pitch ain't a strike, then I've been watching some other game for 24 years. That pitch is nothing but a strike!
Post a Comment