This is Paul Schrieber (43)'s fifth Instant Replay Review of the 2014 MLB Regular Season.
Paul Schrieber is now 3/5 (.800 Affirmation Rate) in Replay Reviews in 2014.
Crew Chief Ted Barrett's crew is now 5/10 (.500 Affirmation Rate) in Replay Reviews in 2014.
*"Gentlemen, we have a conundrum": The call is correct for UEFL Replay Review purposes, as Schrieber's pre-review ruling of a 3-2 count matched Replay Review's decision of a 3-2 count; however, video evidence suggests the final pitch prior to review, reviewed and confirmed as ball three, was in fact ball four. Had an ejection resulted from this play, the Ejection Quality of Correctness (QOC) would have been incorrect.
**After review, the Original Ruling has been reversed in a 6-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.
**After review, the Original Ruling has been reversed in a 6-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.
This is the 140th Instant Replay Review of the 2014 MLB Regular Season.
Umpires are now 82/140 (.586 Affirmation Rate) in Instant Replay Reviews during the 2014 MLB season.
11 comments :
I'm voting to challenge this, as the other count call was sent to the board.
Correct?
What does replay review when checking the count? He received six pitches...one foul ball (for strike 1), one called strike (strike as called on the field), Two obvious balls. The check swing, if it was a foul ball, would have resulted in the called strike as being strike 3. If it was not a foul ball, the count was 3-2 prior to pitch #6.
That's exactly what i was thinking about how is the count confirmed as 3-2 when the replay official is looking at the same replays as everyone else was. I agree with Billunit I think this should be challenged
wwjd220
I normally hate the term brutal but I think this is one of those few times I actually agree with an announcer.
Voting to challenge.
how did they let the at bat keep going? depending on the call on the ball that went off the catcher's glove, the only 2 outcomes were a walk or a strikeout looking.
Chris Conroy ejected Bruce Bochy
This gets stranger...a quote from the web:
''An error was made when replay officials and supervisors mistakenly thought one of the pitches was a foul ball when it was actually a ball,'' MLB said in a statement.
Ok...so if the pitch was ruled a "foul ball" that actually deflected off the glove, then Shreiber's emphatic strike 2 would have been strike 3, at bat over.
Eh...I still don't see that MLB is going to be able to explain themselves out of this one. Count confusion happens on occasion. But when you have the luxury of reviewing the entire at bat, one can only ask "How???"
Per the UEFL rules for replay reviews, the distinction is between upheld/overturned, not between correct/incorrect. As such, any challenges of the QOC of this call cannot reverse the result.
However, the UEFL rulebook as written only provides points for instant replay reviews, and per the MLB Replay Review Regulations, balls and strikes are not subject to instant replay review, but instead subject to communication between the Crew Chief and the Replay Official. A UEFL challenge could theoretically be made based on this distinction in wording, but in the case of an upheld balls/strikes call would provide no direct benefit to anyone who wishes to challenge this call.
I have a record keeping point to bring up. In the summary of the stats at the bottom of the story it states "Paul Schrieber is now 3/5 (.800 Affirmation Rate) in Replay Reviews in 2014." Should that be .600 Affirmation rate?
Post a Comment