MiLB Triple-A's Championship umpiring crew headed by Chad Whitson of the International League worked Tuesday's Storm Chasers-Bulls one-run duel, won by the Storm Chasers in regulation, 2-1. The umpiring crew for the 2-hour, 58-minute championship game, played in front of 9,602 at Coca-Cola Park, was comprised of four regular season crew chiefs:
HP Umpire: Chad Whitson, International League (Regular Season Crew Chief, 0 Ejections).
1B Umpire: Gerard Ascani, Pacific Coast League (Regular Season Crew Chief, 6 Ejections).
2B Umpire: David Soucy, International League (Regular Season Crew Chief, 1 Ejection).
3B Umpire: Kellen Levy, Pacific Coast League (Regular Season Crew Chief, 7 Ejections).
Wrap: Omaha Storm Chasers vs. Durham Bulls, 9/17/13
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
11 comments :
We know he didn't lose the count because he very clearly signals strike two in the video.
That is incorrect.
I agree with both of you. It seems that Wolf didn't lose the count (he seems to signal strike 2 after the third pitch), and I really think it wouldn't have been a prejudice to the opposite team if he had simply told the batter that it was only strike 2.
There's a reason why my original answer incorporated 6.03.
When he walked away, Stewart is not in a legal position in the batter's box (as defined in 6.03), and therefore a strike can be called via application of 6.02(c) because Steward "refused" to take his position in the batter's box. 6.02(c) comment doesn't apply, as only 1 strike is called via this rule.
You can't refuse if you weren't asked to do something in the first place. I'm guessing that's why you put the word "refuse" in quotes, too.
Except the fact that the umpire is not required to ask the batter to return.
That is incorrect...as we have already pointed out. You cannot 'refuse' to enter the batter's box unless you are told to enter the batter's box; therefore, the umpire is required to ask the batter to return to the batter's box. The rule stating the umpire has no obligation is not applicable in this situation and was incorrectly cited in the case play answer.
You can refuse to attend a class by not showing up. By this logic, once a students shows up, he can leave early without penalty if the teacher does not specify a penalty for that.
You are misusing the word 'refuse'...Not showing up to class is not the same thing as refusing to go to class. To refuse is to indicate (by verbal or physical expression) unwillingness to do something that has been expressly asked of you.
If you were to not show up for class and the professor called you and ask you to come to class and you told him that you would not, you would have then 'refused'.
When the word 'refuse' is used in the context of official rules, there can be no ambiguity in it's definition. You can only refuse to do something that you have been expressly asked/told to do.
I think we're drifting from the original subject here. I think rgoldar2 made a very good point when he said this:
"We're not really learning anything when we just manipulate the rules to
fit the actions of the umpire instead of stating that the umpire applied
the rules incorrectly and then stating how they should have correctly
been applied."
The whole point of this website is to analyze the actions of the umpires
and to see if they officiated the game correctly. Bending the rules to
try to justify an umpire action is not how I think this case should have been resolved.
I only discovered this website in July, but it does look like CCS's tendency to back the blue does goes too far at times.
Some could consider a demand for B to get in the BB is implied (not specifically verbalized) and refusal to comply with the implied demand as grounds for using 6.02(c). But I don't think that is the right thing to do.
Still so many unanswered questions about this out. Did PU even use 6.02(c) or is 6.02(c) solely being used retroactively to CYA? 6.02(c) is a deadball penalty. Did PU call time, deliver the penalty strike/out, then make the ball live again? If not, then this looks more like a late CYA attempt.
Post a Comment