Friday, July 1, 2011

Ejections: Vic Carapazza (2, 3)

HP Umpire Vic Carapazza ejected Rays Manager Joe Maddon for arguing a ball four call and Rays pitcher J.P. Howell for Unsportsmanlike-NEC in the top of the 8th inning of the Cardinals-Rays game. Prior to the Maddon ejection, with two out and none on, Cardinals batter Lance Berkman took a 3-2 fastball from Howell for a called ball four. Replays indicate the ball three pitch was located thigh high and over the heart of the plate, the call was incorrect.* Prior to the Howell ejection, with two out and one on, Howell balked, advancing Berkman to second, walked Cardinal batter David Freese, and allowed a three-run homer to Cardinal batter Colby Rasmus. Replays indicate there were no incorrect callable pitches to Freese (there were no callable pitches to Rasmus), the ejection for Unsportsmanlike-NEC was correct.** At the time of the Maddon ejection, the Cardinals were leading, 2-0. At the time of the Howell ejection, the Cardinals were leading, 5-0. The Cardinals ultimately won the contest, 5-3.

These are Vic Carapazza (85)'s second and third ejections of 2011.
Vic Carapazza now has 8 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (5 Previous + 3 AAA + -1 Penalty + -4 Incorrect Call + 3 AAA + 2 Correct Call= 8).
Vic Carapazza was not drafted in 2011.
*Manager's Quality of Correctness was challenged and overturned ("Correct" ==> "Incorrect")
**Pitcher's Reason for Ejection was challenged and overturned ("Balls/Strikes" ==> "Unsportsmanlike-NEC")

These are the 94th and 95th ejections of 2011.
This is the 50th manager ejection of 2011.
This is the 41st player ejection of 2011.
This is Joe Maddon's fourth ejection of 2011.
Prior to his ejection, Howell's line was .2 IP 3 ER.

Wrap: Cardinals at Rays Wrap 7/1/11
Video (1): Maddon is tossed by Vic Carapazza
Video (2): Howell, Price, and Johnson are ejected
Video (3): MUST C Clip, 4 Rays ejected
Related Post: Dana DeMuth (2, 3)

Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
Berkman at bat


Freese at bat

11 comments :

Anonymous said...

this will be overturned, the call was incorrect

Anonymous said...

the description has been edited, and now my comment makes no sense

tmac said...

I'm confused why a 2-2 pitch that would have ended the inning and is a big missed pitch would result in this being a correct call. I know we favor umpires but it is clear that you can NOT miss a pitch on 2-2.

Poorly handled by Vic who missed 16 pitches in the game and has struggled to be consistant this year. His pitch charts have not been pretty.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=7&day=1&year=2011&game=gid_2011_07_01_slnmlb_tbamlb_1%2F&prevDate=71

But the fact remains he is Rich Garcia's son-in Law and he is a Wendlestedt grad so that combo should be enough no matter how bad or good he is at the top level.

Jon Terry said...

I have to agree with tmac on this one. Pitch #5 to Berkman sure looks like a solid strike that was called a ball. However, if it's not the pitch they were arguing . . .

I looked at the pitch charts at Brooks for Carapazza. I think it's funny that Maddon (in this article - http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/More-fireworks-Four-Rays-get-tossed-in-wild-eig?urn=mlb-wp11379) makes comments about the wideness of the zone, when the Brooks chart clearly shows Carapazza's biggest mistakes were middle low.

I see four clear strikes near the bottom, thrown by Tampa pitchers, that were called balls. Yet I also see five lower pitches thrown by Cards pitchers that were called strikes, one out of the zone.

Also, while tmac is correct that there were some slightly wide pitches, using our Kulpa rule all but one of those pitches are still correct by our standard. Seems that Maddon argued the wrong thing.

Beyond that, Carapazza clearly warned Maddon twice with "That's enough", and Maddon only got worse.

Dan said...

I challenge the correct ruling. Pitch #5 in the Berkman at bat was called a ball when it was a strike. And pitch #7 in the Freese at bat should be a strike according to the "Kulpa Rule."

Anonymous said...

Is anybody going to respond to how a 2-2 pitch in the strike zone called a ball would make this a correct ejection?

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review.

Please also note UEFL Rule 6.e.vi. regarding appeals for Quality of Correctness: "Comments on Appeals for Quality of Correctness may be made by any user, and may or may not have influential value in regards to the final decision made to uphold, deny, or defer the appeal for Quality of Correctness. As such, the recommended interval of time from the first post of appeal ("Challenge") to the post displaying the result of appeal (Rule 6.f) shall be no less than 24 hours."

We take our time in order to give everyone a chance to participate in the process. One of the biggest lessons an official in any sport can learn is "don't rush." Even in the "bang-tweet" sport of basketball, "don't rush" holds true. Rushing leads to erroneous calls and greater chaos. We take our time here in responding to challenges so that we can thoroughly review all angles, reference all rules, and ultimately render a just decision.

Thanks!

tmac said...

@ Jon Terry: I like the Kulpa rule but you can't have pitches in the same spot as both balls and strikes and have BOTH be correct. While that may work in this Umpire fantasy league, it doesn't work to help hitters and pitchers get an idea of where the strike zone is. I know when you really break down the edges of the plate you can find much more fault at the consistantcy of Vic's ball/strike zone then the correctness of the calls. In addition, it is troublesome some of his aggregous misses. All in all, get used to him he's not going anywhere. He'd have to make some huge mistakes and be really really bad to not get a big league job.

Anonymous said...

Soon we should have the technology to take this subjective part of the game (balls and strikes) out of the umpires's hands. If only baseball gets more progressive leadership. PItchers with established reputations (who invariably get picked up by high-spending teams) have wider strike zones. Small market teams with good, young pitching talent are often penalized by this inconsistency. If the technological means are available to level the playing field and make baseball fair and consistent, it's only going to better the game and bring in new fans.

Gil "R.O." said...

@tmac, the only reason the Kulpa rule's "borderline" feature works for us is because of pitch f/x's purported 1-inch margin of error. If pitch f/x had a 0.00 inch margin of error, we would be able to eliminate the borderline component.

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged.

After review, the Manager's Quality of Correctness has been overturned. The Manager's call is now incorrect.

After review, the pitcher's Reason for Ejection has been overturned. The pitcher's reason is now Unsportsmanlike-NEC, which carries an automatic Quality of Correctness of "correct."

After review, including examination of the real-time play, replays, and alternate angles, the decision of overturning the Manager's Quality of Correctness was made. As the Manager was ejected immediately following a walk to the preceding batter, but prior to a pitch thrown to the subsequent batter, the preceding at bat is considered, per Rule 6.e.iii. During the preceding at bat, a pitch located within the bounds of the strike zone was called a ball. This had a realistic effect on the at bat; the at bat resulted in a walk, and this was dependent on the incorrectly ruled ball call.

Manager's Quality of Correctness appeal Affirmed.

After review, the decision of overturning the pitcher's Reason for Ejection was made. As the pitcher was ejected immediately following a home run at bat, only this at bat is considered per Rule 6.e.iii. Because there were no callable pitches during the at bat, the ejection over balls and strikes from a previous at bat is Unsportsmanlike-NEC, which is associated with a Quality of Correctness of "correct," per Rule 6.b.ii.e.

Pitcher's Reason for Ejection appeal Affirmed.

Post a Comment