This is Mike Winters (33)'s third Instant Replay Review of the 2014 Regular Season.
Mike Winters is now 2/3 (.667 Affirmation Rate) in Replay Reviews in 2014.
Crew Chief Mike Winters' crew is now 5/10 (.500 Affirmation Rate) in Replay Reviews in 2014.
*The Original Ruling was reversed in a 4-3-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.
*The Original Ruling was reversed in a 4-3-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.
This is the 114th Instant Replay Review of the 2014 MLB Regular Season.
Athletics Manager Bob Melvin is now 1/10 (.100 Success) in Instant Replay Reviews during 2014.
Umpires are now 69/114 (.605 Affirmation Rate) in Instant Replay Reviews during the 2014 MLB season.
29 comments :
This should be incorrect. Winter was indicating a 2-2 count on his fingers at the time this was questioned. He had the wrong count, which was corrected by the replay. Watch the linked video.
Incorrect. He chucked the deuces up. T'was a 1-2 count...
This is an overturned call. Winters had a 2-2 count, which was corrected by replay.
MLB records has this as a confirmed call. By UEFL Replay Review rules, we're bound and obliged to rule this a correct call. MLB has Winters with a 1-2 count pre replay and a 1-2 count upon review.
That's plainly wrong, and it makes no sense that Melvin would argue that the count should be 2-2. Oakland was on defense, and a 1-2 call was in their favor; 2-2 was not. CLEARLY Winters signaled 2-2, which is why Melvin asked them to check. I'm an umpire, and it want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this was an example of replay correcting a mistake, no confirming anything.
The umpire CLEARLY indicates he thinks the count is 2-2...
I agree. Something doesn't feel right. This is a unique situation, so rather than make a unilateral decision, I am going to refer to the UEFL Rules for procedures to take related to this play in that I am going to refer this to the UEFL Appeals Board for review.
The UEFL Appeals Board will consider Rule 7-2, "Disputed Information," which (coincidentally) employs exactly the same standard used by MLB Instant Replay (though we were the first to have the rule)—clear and convincing evidence must exist to prove MLB's official account that the call was confirmed as a 1-2 count is erroneous and it was overturned. I attached the photo of Winters displaying the "2-2" mechanic, which is certainly visual evidence to a degree. The Board will determine whether this is clear or convincing, in light of MLB's assertion that after crew consultation, Winters attempted to verify with New York that it was a 1-2 count, rather than 2-2.
It's not as clear cut, unfortunately, as we'd like to think, but we have a solid crew on the UEFL Appeals Board and we will get to the bottom of it!
If Tim Welke could, he would have ejected the squirrel that got loose for violating 7.08(i): making a travesty of the game.
Does this open a can of worms? Will the UEFL Appeals Board be asked to consider the correctness of replay reviews which render wrong decisions despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary?
In photo 1, "fair" call was confirmed after review. In photo 2, review confirmed a call that player was not tagged while off the base.
This rule drives me insane. The player had a clear path to slide through the catchers legs and the ball arrived at the plate at nearly the same time as the runner. If the catcher is not standing in front of the plate he does not have a chance to tag the runner out. So, basically, the objective of this rule is to banish the "bang bang" play at home plate and allow the offense to score on any close play. Not only are close plays at the plate exciting for the fan but they have been part of this great game since the beginning. Simply allowing the offense to tac runs up on the board over an infraction makes a travesty of the game. If the objective is to keep the catcher from being plowed over, how about making a rule that the runner can't plow the catcher over and that the runner needs to clear path to slide (between the legs of the catcher or to the inner or outer half of the plate)?!?!
good job by Cubby to try and stop the brawl......oh well let 'em go and sort it out later
Replays indicate a bench clearing brawl occurred? Thank goodness for replay.
No can of worms because this referral to the Appeals Board concerns a question of disputed information, as in UEFL Rule 7-2. We are determining whether the clear and convincing standard for this UEFL rule has been met. Replay Review judgment calls are not appealable nor reviewable pursuant to UEFL rules.
According to MLB tonight the guy who threw the punch at Sniders head was Brewers backup catcher Martin Marldanado
Wouldn't surprise me I threw him out in A ball for something similar.
what did he do
From a rule standpoint, I guess this a correct call. From a base baseball standpoint, I hate it and he's out.
I just wish one of these days they'd ACTUALLY sort it out. How can you only have three people worth ejecting when the benches clear?
The only thing more shameful than this display is the fact that no one is going to be punished for it.
My chance at a baseball playing career ended on a play just like this. My leg was stretched across the path to the plate while the ball was arriving. The runner attempted to slide under my leg, but missed, catching my knee, tearing tendons and dislocating the knee. Even with surgery and physical therapy, it never healed enough for me to continue to play.
Given that, I still feel taking away the bang-bang play tarnishes the spirit and excitement of the game, especially in a year when we are already slowing down the game and taking away excitement in the form of replay.
For the second year in a row Carlos Gomez acts like a drug induced jackwaggon! Ok, so Cole yelled at you. Yell back. But is there really any need to go toe-to-toe? I mean... seriously!!!
In his first at-bat in Friday night's game, he struck out looking. So he broke his bat over his knee on the field then went into the dugout and tried to break his batting helmet over the bench. Gomez has some serious anger issues that need to be sorted out before he should be allowed anywhere near a baseball field.
Your blame is misplaced. Cole comes after him and starts arguing. It gets heated, but calms down, then Snider wants to come out of the dugout and get physical? This is not on Gomez.
No denying Cole started it and Snider restarted it, but you have to hold Gomez responsible for his own actions.
Let NHL rules apply and this corrects itself immediately. One on one fights, auto elections for leaving the bench. Add on leaving your position area and boom, problem solved.
For the record, Snider threw the first punch. However, my comment was aimed at the implication that Gomez was responsible for this altercation. This was initiated by Cole.
Every angle I can see clearly shows Gomez throwing the first punch.
or make them have numbers on the jackets
At least the idiots in charge of MLB's "discipline" are consistent. Maldonado got five games, Gomez three, Snider two, and Martin one, and of course they'll appeal them because the clear video footage much be wrong somehow.
Post a Comment