Saturday, July 30, 2011

Ejections: Derryl Cousins (1)

2B Umpire Derryl Cousins ejected Cubs Manager Mike Quade for arguing a non-interference call in the bottom of the 5th inning of the Cubs-Cardinals game. With three on and one out, Cardinals batter David Freese hit a ground ball to Cubs second basemen Darwin Barney to shortstop Starlin Castro, Cardinals R1 Matt Holiday was forced out at second as he slid into Castro. Cardinals R3 Jon Jay and R2 Albert Pujols scored. Replays indicate that Holiday deliberately interfered with Castro to break up a double play in violation of MLB Rule 7.09, the call was incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the contest was tied, 5-5. The Cardinals ultimately won the contest, 13-5.

This is Derryl Cousins (13)'s first ejection of 2011.
Derryl Cousins now has -2 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (0 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = -2)
Derryl Cousins was not drafted in 2011.
*Quality of Correctness was challenged and confirmed ("Incorrect" ==> "Incorrect").

This is the 134th ejection of 2011.
This is the 65th Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Mike Quade's fourth ejection of 2011.

Wrap: Cubs at Cardinals 7/30/11
Video: Quade tossed by Cousins

36 comments :

Anonymous said...

video is up...
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17456999

Jeffrey said...

I know it's a judgment call (and honestly, what isn't), but this should have been ruled a double play.

Anonymous said...

This was a terrible call by Cousins. This is obviously interference with intent to break up a double play. The slide was late and away from the bag. While he could have touched the base he made no real attempt. Inexcusable for him to miss this while standing right on top of it

Anonymous said...

i think it was a good call- looks like Holiday was close enough to second to touch it...

Anonymous said...

Love Cousins going back at Quade, he comes out to argue almost every game with even the most veteran of umpires and today Derryl Cousins taught Quade a lesson and let him have it. When you give it to a veteran crew cheif like that, you are going to get it right back most of the time. Love the fire from Cousins, and Jim Wolf coming over to get in the way.

Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure that Holliday willfully and deliberately interferes with this play (those are the words used in the rule. I think it's just a good hard slide to try to break up a double play. I'm going to challenge this ruling of an incorrect call.

Anonymous said...

As long as your able to touch the bag, and Holiday was able to do that.

tmac said...

This is a NO win situation for Cousins and could be called either way. On one hand there is a possibility for Holliday to touch the bag on the other it is a horrible slid by him and delibrate interference to break up a double play... BUT as any professional umpire knows slides like this happen all the time and interference is rarely called BUT this slide is especially awkward and just looks awful. Call interference and the result will be an ejection... Non call of interference and well you saw the result. This is one where most umpires are going... "Man i'm glad I wasn't the umpire making that call." Well handled by Cousins who I'm sure did not like being yelled at by a manager who shows little respect for anyone of authority.

jhagen88 said...

He missed that one. Plain and simple. Holiday did not even start his slide until he was to the front of the bag. Even at that level I would turn the double play.

JPINFV said...

@Anon7:35

"I'm not so sure that Holliday willfully and deliberately interferes with this play (those are the words used in the rule. I think it's just a good hard slide to try to break up a double play. I'm going to challenge this ruling of an incorrect call."

How is a good hard slide to try and break up a double play not a deliberate interference in the play? What other reason is there to slide like that? Furthermore, and I know that this isn't how baseball is played regardless of the rules, but I would love to see strict enforcement of interference against teams that obviously attempts to break up plays (which is, in reality, text book interference of 7.09 (e) as the slides are, even when in arms length, obviously not made in an attempt to obtain a base safely).

This would, of course, also eliminate any need for the "neighborhood" play.

Anonymous said...

I agree with #4. Good of Cousins to give it back. Quade comes out it seems every freaking game. Needs to be put in his place. You don't go out there and disrespect a veteran like that. Cousins let him have his say and then Quade went to far, so he was put in his place. Well handled by, Cousins.

thexfactor264 said...

I can't remember the last time I have seen Derryl Cousins eject someone in a non-fighting situation. For him to be barking at Quade like that, you know Quade said something personal.

James said...

The whole 'being able to reach the bag' thing is completely irrelevant in this situation. Holliday clearly appeared to kick Castro's legs out from underneath him. This isn't someone sliding hard into the bag. To call that a 'good take-out slide' is idiotic; that's one of the worst excuses for a slide since Hamilton broke his arm. You don't slide side-ways into a bag while flailing your legs in an attempt to kick a fielder's shins. Absolutely disgusting....

jb said...

While I agree slides "like" this happen all the time, this was an extreme example. Also, while he may have been able to reach the bag horizontally as upright as he was when he was over the bag there is no way vertically he could have reached down and touched it until after he was past the bag. I'm real suprised a Cardinal batter didn't take one in the back, especially once the game was out of hand.

BAPACop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gil "R.O." said...

This call has been challenged and is under review.

Anonymous said...

I don't like to be combative, but when people say "he could have touched second", I really want to know how that would be physically possible.

At no point that I see could he have actually touched the bag even if he tried. Yes, his hand goes over the bag, but it's a good two feet in the air when that happens, and he's only started his slide. Had he been reaching for the bag, it still would have been a foot or so short.

If the hand going over the bag in the air is enough to qualify for "could have touched the bag" (even if would be physically impossible), then that means that had Holiday stayed standing, and run three feet to the right field side of second, he'd be OK as long as he stuck his left arm out so it passed over the bag.

SBUmp said...

Cousins is a good ump, but he missed the call, as any of us who have umpired have done. This is a bang-bang play, but the runner made no attempt to touch the bag & his intent was to take out the fielder and make sure he could not throw, the definition of interfering. Bang him & LaRussa comes out & gets ejected, the right call in this case is the more difficult call & Cousins took the easy way out, doubt he even gave it that much thought.

Anonymous said...

All of these previous posts are clearly from an amateur umpire point of view. If you think Cousins made a bad call, you DO NOT understand the pro slide rule. This was a good call, made by one of the best umpires of all time. Tshida says Cousins is (quietly) one of the best ever. And to the comment about this call could have gone either way, your a moron.

OSheaman said...

Quade might have said something out of line, and I definitely don't argue the ejection since they were going at it, but I gotta say that if you think that was a good slide you're crazy. Of course you try to break up the double play if you're Holiday but you have to mask it a little better than that and he would have had to make a Stretch Armstrong-esque move to get second with his left hand there.

Anonymous said...

Quade is a jackass....doesn't know how to argue. This was clearly interference.

Anonymous said...

Interesting: 2 former MiLB players, 1 with the Detroit organization and 1 with the Pittsburgh organization, arguing with each other.

Jeremy "jeruhmed" said...

We appreciate the discussion, but please try to refrain from calling each other names, thanks.

OSheaman said...

And who here is saying Cousins isn't a good umpire? I must have missed some comment comparing him to Bob Davidson or something.

Dan said...

I like Derryl Cousins. He's a good umpire that does his job well, and does it quietly. But I think he got this one wrong. There's no way Holliday could have touched second base with that slide. By the time he tried to reach for the bag, he was already well past it.

Anonymous said...

Cousins has been at this WAY longer than us. He was 5 feet from the play. How can you argue with him? Maybe in your pony league this is a bad call, but please put your experience away, and take a big league umpires opinion, it was a good slide! Get a clue people!

Anonymous said...

@7:01 Then by that standard, no call is _ever_ missed.

Part of the reason I come here is to learn. I asked before, and I'll ask it again: For anybody who says this was a good call (putting aside the "pony league" and "amateur umpire" shots), what exactly made this a good call?

Holiday could not have touched second at any point (his hand went over the bag, but even if he had reached for it, was too "vertical" to actually touch it). So why was this play not interference, but this one http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=11349717 was?

Anonymous said...

at 5:16pm

Ok, listen........ for the last time!!!!

This is a judgement call! You will not find it in the rule book!

If you think Cousins made a bad call, then yes you have an amateur view of the play.


Also, your last question is called a straw man argument, and your post should be deleted by the MOD. Straw man arguments are banned on all forums, and are considered abuse.

Anonymous said...

Been on the road for a few days . . .

Cousins is a legendary umpire. no question. Bu tthat doesn't mean he can't make a mistake. And here, he made one.

"Within arm's reach" is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Intent must always be part of the equation, and so must a recognition of how far the player must go in his attempt.

This is clear interference. Holiday slid far too late to call it anything else, and the way he threw out his leg was just dangerous.

If Holiday had gotten down a couple of steps earlier, then he wouldn't have had to throw the leg, and it would have been a clean, hard slide. But this was a mess.

I would have called this interference, and I would have dealt with the argument and possible ejection.

I agree that those who think this is a good call should explain their position, insted of just criticizing the other posters for their views.

Can't get the log in to work.

Signed (cause I think we should all have to)
Jon Terry

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged.

After review, the Quality of Correctness has been confirmed. The call is now incorrect.

After review, including examination of the real-time play, replays, and alternate angles, the decision of confirming the original Quality of Correctness was made. Using the multiple angles available, it is apparent the baserunner's intent was to disrupt a double play attempt as opposed to legitimately trying to reach second base. This is evidenced by the runner's late slide and posture (high torso with right arm extended [elbow]) at the time of contact with the fielder, who is positioned significantly removed from the immediate vicinity of second base. Upon consultation of several additional rules interpretation sources (BRD, Baseball Field Guide, etc.), which have no official bearing on QoC determination, but like all comments to this thread, do carry influential value in process formation, the decision of confirming QoC was made. After exhaustive review and consultation, QoC was not just confirmed, but the "incorrectness" of QoC was strengthened, given all influential factors.

Denied.

Anonymous said...

@10:29 AM

It certainly is not a "straw man" argument--one was called interference, the other was not. Since the two plays do look very similar, I was trying to see what made the difference.

Again, I asked what made this a good call, and the only answer I've been able to get is that it's a judgement call (OK), and that I must have an "amateur" view of things to not understand why the call is right (frankly, not OK).

I've enjoyed reading and occaisionally commenting over the past several years. But if a legitimate question is simply going to be met by insults, I frankly have better things to do with my time.

Anonymous said...

This is where I really disagree with this site, sorry Gil. I've been out of line when "I" think some of you make ridiculous arguments.
So let me be clear without insults.

What you guys are doing is taking the rule book, and then using the replay to form an opinion. Seems like the logical way to do business. Then maybe you add your umpire experience, and now you got your opinion.

What Cousins has done is take the same rule book, and then he uses his 30 years of professional baseball experience as PRECEDENT, and forms his opinion. He's seen this play in the minors, many many times. He's called it both ways in the Bigs, many many times. It's a judgement call, you cannot say is wrong.
And Here's where this site loses it's way. When a rule (which this one does) ends by saying, "This is entirely up to the umpires judgement" And the rule begins with, "the player must be able to touch the base", you once again, under any idea of fairness, cannot say Cousins was wrong.
On this play Cousins is in the abstract. He gets to decided, without protest.

Cousins gets to look at the play for 2 seconds and decide if he's seen it before, and can he allow it. I cannot fathom how he can be wrong.

Additionally, you must allow Cousins to make this call. If he's been making these calls for 30 some years, that's called consistency.
That's what makes baseball like no other sport. You can compare generations to generations, because of the history. Players in professional baseball have had to accept Cousins judgements for the last 3 decades, that's called history, and that's why he cannot be wrong on judgement calls.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with what the last Anonymous poster has said. The primary issue with a lot of what has gone wrong in baseball today is the very thing that is being done in here at times. Using INSTANT REPLAY to pass judgment on what these guys are having to do on the fly! I played baseball my whole life up through college, I started umpiring when I was 16, I went to umpire school, I worked briefly in a professional ball, I have worked any and every other level of ball out there from high school to Division I, and I( like many of you possibly are) am a fan/spectator of baseball in general. Which is why it is making me sick to read so many general assumptions and statements about what should have been done when a guy is making a judgment call. If you can step back and read these comments subjectively, you would see what I see and it's like I am listening to a bunch of damn play by play announcers driving huge buses up and down Cousins' back! If he wasn't a great umpire with great judgment, he wouldn't be a 30+ year veteran, nor would he be a crew chief! I am fortunate enough to have many friends working in the game today who I am fairly certain would share my frustration with this post (as the anonymous poster prior to me has done.) I hate to make this association but I can't help myself because it seems so fitting....but this is kind of like a group (including myself in this as I am NOT a current or former MLB Umpire) of security guards sitting around replaying a youtube video over and over while passing judgment on the actions of an actual police officer who has been through years of schooling and training and is trusted by all who matter, to serve and protect, and acting like we would have done it differently had it been us. I for one am man enough to admit that IF I was as good as Cousins is at umpiring then I would be working in the Big Leagues. BUT, I'm not which is why I work amateur baseball and enjoy watching these talented guys who do work in the Bigs. Much like with police officers, there area few bad apples that spoil the bunch, but sitting around and watching play backs from 37 different camera angles and then passing judgment as though we would have made the "right" call given the chance is purely comical at best. Let's look for trends and then pass judgment!
(steps down from soap box)

And I will sign my own name!

Matt Brock (CA)

Anonymous said...

Matt, the police analogy is spot on.

Let me also clarify.........

This site isn't a problem, it seems quite fair. The powers that be here on this forum aren't always 100% correct, but they are pretty fair. Maybe overly fair even!
When I say I disagree with this site, it's the people posting, and the general posting sentiment and idea's that are the issue.

Rob said...

To say that judgement calls cannot be wrong is a false statement. Plays at first base are judgement calls, and MLB umpires have missed them (and admitted doing so). So if it is a fact that MLB umpires do make mistakes on judgement calls, why are we on this forum out of line by pointing out that in "OUR" judgement the call was incorrect. Judgement is funny like that, it goes both ways. Yes, it's a judgement call...and in Cousins judgement no interference was called. In the judgement of some people on this forum interference should have been called. The very basis of this entire forum is that we scrutinize every call leading to an ejection. Many of those calls are judgement calls. Anyone who says "cannot argue" those calls probably shouldn't even visit this site.

And the whole idea that criticizing based on replays is not fair because he only saw it "for 2 seconds" or that amateur umpires can't criticize because they're not as good as pros is a cop out. Pros miss calls sometimes! It doesn't make them bad people or bad umpires it just happens. No one is calling for Cousins resignation or firing; just some umpire ejection league fantasy points.

Anonymous said...

Rob, the play at 1st, and the play cousins had at second may both be judgement calls, but they are not comparable. Force plays are cut and dry. Obstruction/Interference calls are true judgement calls. Rob, on a force play, a no call is not acceptable. The umpire is forced to say safe or out. Cousins is not forced to make a call, it's up to his judgement.
Your "cop out" comment is quite funny to me.
The only way I would agree with this call being incorrect is if Cousins said he missed it.
Plus, the rule says the runner must be able to touch the base, it doesn't say he has to touch the base.
I'm not saying judgement calls cannot be wrong, I'm saying this particular judgement call cannot be wrong.

This is why I love baseball, people passionate with really good points on both sides. They should ban the sport of football entirely, and make the football season, MLB round 2 !!!

Post a Comment