Monday, May 30, 2011

Ejections: Gary Darling (2)

3B Umpire Gary Darling ejected Twins Manager Ron Gardenhire for arguing a runner placement call in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Twins-Tigers game. With two out and one on, Tigers batter Alex Avila doubled on a 1-1 fastball from Twins pitcher Alex Burnett down the left field line, Tigers R1 Jhonny Peralta scored on spectator interference. Replays clearly indicate the mechanic for spectator interference was given, as the ball hit the hand of a fan reaching over the railing. Under MLB Rule 3.16, the ball becomes dead at the moment of interference. The placement of the runners (R1 Peralta scoring) was appropriate under Rule 3.16, which gives umpires the discretion to impose penalties in their opinion that nullify the interference, the call was correct.* The call is now inconclusive.* At the time of the ejection, the Tigers were leading, 6-5. The Tigers ultimately won the contest, 6-5.

This is Gary Darling (37)'s second ejection of 2011.
Gary Darling now has 8 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (4 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 8).
Gary Darling was not drafted in 2011.
*Quality of Correctness was challenged, deferred, and reverted ("Correct" ==> "Inconclusive" ==> "Correct").

This is the 59th ejection of 2011.
This is the 33rd manager ejection of 2011.
This is Ron Gardenhire's fourth ejection of 2011.
Video (3): Must C: Curious

34 comments :

DJP said...

I'm pretty sure it was an incorrect call

Tmac said...

What a wacky play... This is a rotation play due to the 3rd base umpire (Darling) going out so 1st base ump (Emmel) is @ home and home plate ump Dreckman) is @ 3rd. It's hard to imagine Peralta scoring from 1st considering when the ball is touched he's probably a step or 2 past 2nd base.. BUT there is no angle showing where he was in relation to the ball so good luck getting that overturned. I think the umpires erred on the placement but either way there is probably going to be an ejection on the play. Kudos to Emmel who was difinitive in making the call and it is his responsibility to place the runner rounding second as he has the best view of the whole play.

James said...

I'm positive it was an incorrect call. I watched the game live.

DJP said...

Ok, so it was the "correct" call but a bad judgement by the umpires. Peralta was just rounding 2nd when the ball was interfered with and the Twins likely would have had Peralta nailed at the plate with Young's arm. if Peralta was going on the pitch and was a faster baserunner, then I understand. But the ground rule double almost always negates the run from first scoring, even when it appears likely that there wouldn't have been a play. It should have been 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs. Not like the Twins 'pen would have closed the door anyways, but I just don't see the logic behind the decision to allow the runner in.

Anonymous said...

That crew has had their fair share of issues with the Twins...

Adam & Katie said...

Ok, if the 2 gentleman, in blue shirt, who reaches out in fact touches the ball then the call is correct. In the umpires judgement Peralta would have scored, so they awarded him appropriately. Even though we may disagree with that, there is NO WAY that can be overturned. If the ball was not touched by that man, and then jumped and hit either the small boy or man immediately behind him, then this should have been a ground rule double. Avila to 2B, Peralta to 3B.

Bill said...

Agree with Adam...3.16 says the ball is dead at the moment of spectator interference and the umpires will make awards to "nullify the act of interference". So, if the interference occurred when blue shirt guy reached over the rail, where ever the umpires place the runner is the "correct" call. Since that's what they did, obviously that was the call.

If they opted that blue shirt guy did not touch the baseball, then there is the issue of it appearing to hit orange shirt guy. That would be a two base award from from the time of pitch, and would have runners on second and third.

Since the ball was dead at the moment of blue shirt guy's inteference, there cannot be a two award (a/k/a "ground rule" double) because it was a dead ball when it appeared to hit orange shirt guy.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that darling came out after the game and said he called interference because of orange shirt guy. Which makes me wonder what the heck was going on in his head....Tom pelissero (sp?) has the quote on his twitter if you want to fact check

Anonymous said...

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15365993
Shows toss by Darling

Anonymous said...

If the fan reaches onto the field it's interference and the umpire places the runners where he thought they should be. If the ball hit the kid first than it is a two base award because a live fair batted ball left the field. There is no such thing as a ground rule double in that instance.

jhagen88 said...

Challenge.

The ball did not hit the fan reaching over. The ball does not change it's path or speed when it goes by his hand. It then hits the guy in Orange making the correct call a ground-rule double.

Brett said...

There is no such thing as a ground rule double. This is a common misconception among fans. We were taught at umpire school that if the fair ball bounces into the stands, it is a 2 base award. From what I can tell, the umpires decided that the fans that reached out onto the field touched the ball before it went to the stands. In that case you have spectator interference, which allows the umpires to place the runners at their discretion to nullify the interference. I honestly think it is a good call.

Anonymous said...

What was the difference in this one and the one the Braves has on May 25.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15152215

Anonymous said...

this video seems to have the best look at the play... http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15362683&topic_id=11493214

I am not sure that the fan in blue ever touched the ball, based off of the carom the ball took. It definitely hits either the man in orange or his son. If they are not reaching over the fence on that play, shouldn't the ball be dead and out of play, not spectator interference? Wouldn't it be the same if there was a pole that the ball hit and comes back in play?

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review.

Anonymous said...

No way to tell whether the ball hit the guys hand who was leaning over with the shots given. However right at the 44 second mark the ball hit the kid on the collar bone and orange guy in the chest.

The hand signal by Darling definitely indicates fan interference in which case all play ceases. You call time first, which means the ball is dead, and then you give the spectator interference signal. All runners on base and the batter runner are put where in the umpires judgment they should be had there been no spectator interference. That could be just 1 base all the way to a home run depending on the severity of the fan interference, where the runners were at the moment of interference and the speed of the runners involved. The umpires must judge all this. A slow runner does not get the same consideration a fast runner would get and the umpires unfortunately must take into account the speed of each runner involved in making this judgment. The umpire who calls the interference, must consult with the other umpires to decide what penalty will nullify the act of spectator interference.

The plate umpire who has the view of the whole field in front of him when all the runners are running usually has the most input for the placement of the runners. In this case the crew rotated and therefor the 1st base umpire who now has home plate would be watching the lead runners and have the most input with the placement decisions. If the guy leaning over the fence touched the ball with his hand causing the interference, the placement of runners could be different than if it is decided the ball deflected off the guy in the orange shirt.

Anonymous said...

The call has to be correct. 3.16 allows the umpires to place the runners. nuff said

Anonymous said...

If the ball hit the guys hand leaning over the rail it would be fan interference. If it hit the kid and father, it would be a ground rule double provided the kid/father was not leaning over the rail and it appears they were not. Spectator interference can allow for a more advantageous awarding of bases than a ground rule double call.

Adam & Katie said...

@Brett and all "ground rule double" naysayers. It does exist...once...Rule 7.10(b) Comment. You all need to get off your "rule book" high horse. It is widely known by fans/umpires alike what a "ground rule double" is. If it weren't then this wouldn't appear as it does in THE BOOK.

As for the callenge. The call was spectator interferance. I'm not sure we can honestly say, well he called it on the guy leaning over and not the guy/kid in orange, or visa versa. I'm for sure not going to take a guys Tweet as fact.

The reaching fan is debatable, but I can't see hard evidence that the ball DIDN'T touch the reaching guys hand. While a speed/direction change would be solid proof it did, you can't go by that alone. Especially with the direction the ball was travelling and the distance before it did hit the wall. Even if it grazes the guys hand, and puts very little change on the ball, it is still interference.

Otherwise the call I feel would be incorrect as to me it is clearly outside the field of play when it hits the kid and/or adult in orange.

I don't think you can overrule the placement of the runners. That is strickly an umpires judgement, and even if you don't agree with it, you CAN NOT overturn that, or rule it incorrect.

Jon Terry said...

This call is correct.

In real time, from as close as he could get, Gary Darling judged that the fans leaning over touched the ball. While people will argue for replay, there in no conclusive evidence otherwise on the video we have.

Every piece of this is judgement, and should not be overturned.

Bill said...

Whoa there, Adam...let's take a step back here.

I think the point Bret and I were trying to make is that the "ground rule double" is not a term umpires use among themselves, or as a general rule, with managers and coaches. Not saying the term doesn't exist, just saying it is properly called a "two base award".

When a batted ball goes out of play, what signal do I use? The "ground rule double" signal? Nooooo...there is no such thing. I am yelling "TIME" with my hands up, and then saying "Two Bases" while showing two fingers raised.

Adam & Katie said...

@Bill, didn't have an issue with you. I used the informal usage, you threw the "aka" in there, that's cool.

I'm just saying some of those others seem to be kicking and screaming "there's no such thing", well sorry to say...there is. Although I will say there is no definition, one of those things that honestly could/should be either A. Removed, or B. Defined.

Yes, formally I agree with everything you say there, and yep in games I do the same thing. But in a scenario like this page to say something like that by it's well established informal name. I don't see the issue, as a umpire, coach, manager, or spectator.

This is the issue I see with some umpires all the time. They get this complex where they think they are better than somebody else because they "know the rules" or went to some camp. I guarantee you I know the rules just as good as anybody else here. So unless somebody makes a glaring error like calling Obstruction Interference, or visa versa, there is no need to call them out.

Baseball is about fun, lets keep it that way. PLAY BALL!!!

clement30 said...

Just watched the first good angle on my DVR version of MLB Network's "Quick Pitch". They show Peralta and where he is the whole video on a split screen. He was just one step around second when the orange guy's kid touched the ball, and would have had NO chance of scoring if the ball was played by Young. It was a bad call, but I don't think there is a rule that can make it an incorrect call on this post.

Anonymous said...

clement30 - if you read the post the fan inference was called on the blue shirt guy leaning over, not the orange guys kid...just thought you should know.

Anonymous said...

The rulebook says the umpire makes the judgment on placing the runners. It also says the umpire makes the judgment on safe/out calls. That doesn't mean that every judgment they make is the correct one...

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged.

After review, the Quality of Correctness has been deferred. The call is now inconclusive.

After review, including examination of the real-time play, replays, and alternate angles, the decision of deferring the original call was made. With all available viewing angles, it is ultimately unclear whether a reaching fan along the foul line quasi parallel wall made contact with the baseball; it is clear that a non-reaching fan along the foul line quasi perpendicular wall made contact with the baseball. One way or another, the ball was correctly ruled dead. It is ultimately unclear whether the ball should have been ruled dead under the provisions of fan interference or under Rule 7.05(f). Sans clear and convincing evidence to rule out the possibility of fan interference, there is not enough evidence to overturn this call; therefore, it must be ruled inconclusive. Per UEFL Rule 7.a., this call may be reviewed, resolved, and/or reverted at any time prior to the conclusion of this phase of the season as defined by Rule 8.a.iii. (the All-Star game).

Deferred.

Adam & Katie said...

@Anon...Yep you are right safe/out, ball/strike, and runner placement, among other things are all judgement calls. And that is the main reason why they are not arguable in the field of play. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, we are now able to have multiple cameras all watching and be able to go back and review things.

Balls/Strikes, Safe/Out, are calls which there is a set guideline of what is a ball/strike and what is safe/out. They are black and white. There is no set guideline of how runners should be awarded bases. Yes an umpire should determine how fast a runner is, perhaps where the ball should have been played had the ball not been struck by a spectator, but really w/o actually recreating the play we DO NOT KNOW how the play really would have wound up. Would the runner really have even attempted to score, would there have been a play at the plate. Who knows. I do believe that allowing the run to score was perhaps a bit generous. I can probably guarantee that the runner would have at least been to 3B.

The deferral is the correct call, but I can't see it changing to incorrect either.

Anonymous said...

A Ground Rule Double is enforced when a fair batted ball becomes lodged in a tarp or a ball gets stuck in the fence or the ivy at Wrigley. It is a double based on "ground rules" established at the plate conference. If a fair batted ball touches the ground and than bounds into the stands it is a two base award...not a ground rule double. A plumber umpire may blow this off as insignificant but if you actually study the rules and learn to apply them correctly you understand the difference. I didn't spend $4000 at Umpire School so Adam can tell me that it's all the same and it doesn't matter...blah, blah, blah. When you discuss a rule interruptation you may want to try using rulebook terminology...otherwise you sound like a plumber.

Adam & Katie said...

@Anon...next time you try and prove a point, use accurate information...

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/ground_rules.jsp

Your scenario = two bases NOT a "Ground Rule Double". Sounds like you need to use your own advise first. Maybe you need to actually study the rules and learn to apply them yourself before going on your tirade.

In finishing:

1. GROUND RULE DOUBLE does exist, however it's not defined, so in essence I can call it whatever the **** I want, and not be wrong.

2. I'll admit, I shouldn't have used it with some of this bunch who think they are high and mighty and I don't know the difference and yada, yada, yada. So to please the court I'll just post a rule book citation for now on.

3. I'm an electrican, not a plumber, true story.

tmac said...

There seem to be many RULE BOOK Lawyers in here that whenever challanged run to the book to show they're right and when challanged to use common sense strugle mightily. They'd never make it out of a week in pro ball b/c they'd be too busy throwing out the base coaches for not standing into the coaches box at all times b/c after all it's a rule and the RULE book says it's true so it must be enforced. Common sense and handling situations is 95% of umpiring.

Anonymous said...

And knowing the rules is 100%....handling situations is nice if you can bull**** your way out of knowing the rules. Believe me....the pro guys enforce the rules and they don't make exceptions for plumbers who make excuses. Why have a rulebook if you don't bother to read them.

Anonymous said...

Adam....I'll let Brent Rice....the head rules instructor know he's wrong because you said so. I hope your an armchair umpire and not a real umpire because guys like you are the reason guys like me have to carry a mop bucket to clean up your s*** all game long.

Jeremy "jeruhmed" said...

Everyone,

I'm glad you are all participating in this thread and a part of the UEFL. This is an interesting and lively discussion, but remember we are here to have good, constructive discussions about umpiring and MLB umpires. Please refrain from the ad hom attacks and insults. It isn't productive in camps, during instruction, on the field, or on here to needlessly personally criticize one another.

Thank you.

Gil "R.O." said...

After exhaustive review, the decision has been made to revert this call to "Correct"

Post a Comment