Friday, August 5, 2011

Ejections: Brian Knight (3)

HP Umpire Brian Knight ejected Blue Jays Manager John Farrell for arguing a non interference call in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Blue Jays-Orioles game.* With one out and one on, Orioles batter Robert Andino hit a 0-0 fastball from Blue Jays pitcher Luis Perez down the first base line, about half way (45 feet) toward first base. When Perez attempted to field and throw the ball to first baseman Adam Lind, his throw was wide and Andino reached on a fielding error. Replays indicate Rule 6.05(k) Interference, as prescribed by rule, did not occur due to the poor quality of Perez' throw. However, replays indicate contact did occur between the feet of Andino and Perez resulting in a poor plant and poor throw; this is interference under Rule 7.08(b), the call was incorrect. At the time of the ejection, the Blue Jays were leading, 4-3. The Blue Jays ultimately won the contest, 5-4.

This is Brian Knight (91)'s third ejection of 2011.
Brian Knight now has 0 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (2 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = 0)
Brian Knight was not drafted in 2011.
*This ejection has been granted a Post-Inning Exemption under Rule 6.e.iii.b. The authority to grant a Post-Inning Exemption during a pitching change is derived from Rule 6.e.iv.b.

This is the 143rd ejection of 2011.
This is the 68th Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Farrell's third ejection of 2011.

Wrap: Blue Jays at Orioles 8/5/11
Video: Condensed Game (Play Occurs at 9:45)

17 comments :

tmac said...

Some thoughts: First of all Brian Knight may be the best umpire on the crew from hell (hunter, Layne and Davidson). BUT this is a really bad call in two spots. The runner can't be jumping over the ball as a fielder is attempting to field the ball, make contact with the fielder (albeit just foot contact) run outside of the running lane for every stride but one where he may have grazed the chalk. When you can call interference Twice... you may just want to call it once!

Then the discussion between Knight and Farell goes on WAY too long. So long that Layne has to come in to break it up to move the game along. Then the ONLY good part of the play was after the pitching change Knight ejected Farell. Layne was nowhere to be found. Just let the four guy (though there was a call-up for Hunter) on your crew be yelled at by a manager after an ejection.. Including Knight being followed by farell when it looked as though Knight wanted to part of the aftermath (after the EJ). This crew needs to stay as far away from any important game the rest of the season. I'm sure the dissenters to that last comment will be Wendlestedt grads who are in Awe of paying a check to Jerry and seeing Hunter about once a week ;)

Anonymous said...

tmac, I've always found your comments very insightful. Good obs, and I like Gil's initial post, too, where he says that it's Rule 7.08b interference and not 6.05k because the throw was poor. I had to go back to the book to read it and you're right, 6.05k (the 45' lane rule) only talks about the guy at 1st base fielding the ball/throw, it makes no mention of the guy down the line. And i'm no expert, but i suppose it then follows that if the throw is poor, you can't penalize the offense by calling interference because the 1st baseman had a very low probability of making the catch even without the runner being there. And undoubtedly, there was contact and interference with the pitcher, which I guess is where the 7.08b interference comes in. Good call (I mean on the UEFLs part, the call on the field was obviously wrong).

Jerry sure is one of the more "hands off" chiefs in general, I think Knight would have benefited from being on a Joe West crew for a game like this. Joe would have told Farrell point blank to knock it off before he even started, and I have a feeling, though Farrell would have yelled and the announcers and fans would probably be knocking on West for being "aggressive and confrontational," very likely, Farrell would have remained in the game. And if not, Joe would have taken out the trash - a crew chief protecting his crew just like the manager protects his player.

That's one place where I think with the current alignments, where you have Chad Fairchild on Joe West's crew with Schrieber/Holbrook, that Fairchild is really benefitting. He's seeing it (and so is a younger guy like Schrieber for that matter), and though he might not choose to be so proactive about it, he'll at least have the tools when he's been in the league for a while to take control of situations and a game.

-JD

Anonymous said...

tmac, your wrong. While it's nice to paint a word picture, I really don't understand how being from any place on earth, and including hell, would be a reason to be considered a bad umpire.
And I'd like to hear your detailed evaluation of these 4 big league umpires. You should also be prepared to compare the 4, to the rest of the MLB umpire staff, to prove these 4 are indeed the bottom 4 umpires in the league.
Also, I think you should contact MLB, and find out which MLB executive offered these 4 MLB contracts. These guys maybe the ones on the field causing the problems, but somebody was a sleep at the wheel in HR the day these guys were hired. Like a GM of a team, he is ultimately responsible. Maybe MLB doesn't know or have the evidence you have uncovered. I think you might be in line for a nice payday here. Contact MLB, tell them what you have, and then tell them for a small price you'll turn over your evidence, and you won't mention any of this to the media. I think MLB would be very very happy, and thankful to hear from you. Because remember image is everything to MLB, so they certainly don't want umpires working who are unqualified, and so blatantly as you suggest.

@JD

If you think for 1 second that the umpires that are given MLB contract don't have the "tools" on day 1 your very sadly mistaken. The 1st year guys have seen everything, and been told everything. Every crazy play, jerk manager, heckling fans, it's been done to death by the time they get to the bigs. They do not arrive in the bigs and then learn to take control. I hope you really don't think that? They know how to take control, and they are itching to do it!
What they lack is simple. 2 things must be learned after getting to the bigs, and it only happens until they get there. The 1st is respect. The 1st year guys were highly respected at AAA. Now they must start over with the big league players. That's a tough, and takes some guys longer than others. The other thing they need to learn is umpiring under the big league pressure. ESPN, big crowds, the gravity of the situation and importance of the game. And then there's the players. Now they must learn to call guys out, just 5 years ago they were watching with their buddy's on T.V. Steve Sax would be a player example of what I'm trying to say. The mind can play tricks on you under pressure when your adrenaline is flowing.

Rex said...

It's a perception issue. Wendelstedt & Davidson are perceived as the bottom of the MLB barrel as far as rank & file umpires go, and Layne is lower on the crew chief chart. Every job has its best & its worst, it's top half and bottom half. This crew, for whatever reason, looks like it's comprised only of bottom half umpires. Guys like Brian Knight, the rookies so to speak, are unknown, they haven't yet made their big league reputations, so they could go to the top of the class or to the bottom.

@JD, completely agree. Fairchild is in a much better spot to learn from his cc and crewmates than Knight. No newhire, with the possible exception of Guccione & Drake who worked close to 1000 games before their contracts, has the big league experience - and MLB-status experience is different than AAA-fill-in experience - to deal with certain situations in a uniquely MLB level way. Until they have that contract, they're juggling how to prove to the higher ups that they should be hired. It's a different pressure and a different mindset. Having a strong chief during your first few MLB-status seasons is extremely valuable. Put it this way, if you're working as a resident in hospital, and you are under the tutelage of a highly respected and accomplished surgeon, you're going to learn a heck of a lot more than if you're with a general surgeon who is less than average. If you're a comedy actor, you'll probably be more successful working in a written & directed by Mel Brooks picture than with a name that is not so high up on the comedy list.

Sure, you have respect, pressure, etc., and that can often be an individual battle. But a strong chief & crew may provide better strategies/tools to obtain those things than a lesser chief & crew, and as a result, the umpire who is exposed to the stronger/better knowledge may figure it out a lot faster than an umpire who isn't.

We've been over this a million times in regards to respect, handling situations, etc. How many times does a Jim Wolf get into controversy and how many times does a Bob Davidson get into controversy? For some guys, controversy works to their benefit (Joe West), because they make it work for them. For others, it doesn't seem to help them (Davidson). Some guys get away with being extremely arrogant on the field (Doug Eddings) and others don't. Some are great communicators (Laz Diaz). Each has their skill, and those skills are largely honed in part due to the influence of the crew and crew chief early in an umpire's big league career.

Jasom said...

If it's not one type of interference, it's the other kind, huh. Call the first one and the argument about the second one is a moot point. I really can't fault Knight here in terms of getting into position to make a call, and then making a call. Knight clearly shows his safe mechanic as in no interference. He just missed the interference which occurred. But he did everything else right.

Jon Terry said...

Hey guys. While you talk about Knight learning, remember that before his contract, he had been a call-up since 2001, and had 675 pro games under his belt. There's rookies, and rookies.

Anonymous said...

@Rex Wow you really seem to know a lot about MLB umpires. How do you form your opinions? You seem to know who is arrogant, how do you know that? Are you basing your beliefs on the games you watched on TV? Have you talked to these people, and then after having said conversation, formed your opinion?
Your entire post is a waste of my time. You don't know enough about these people to form a psychological diagnosis of arrogance. You've sited nothing to back up your claims.

Rex said...

@Anonymous 10:53. I know from personal experience. Joe is a no holds barred, no nonsense guy. It's his MO and it works. Doug is arrogant as can be on the field, he has a huge ego. That's just how he is and for better or for worse, that's how he calls his games and believe it or not, it helps him get calls right. And Laz is a joker, he's just glad to be anywhere where he's at. Not only that, these guys don't especially care who knows it. They're all proud of who they are and where they are. Davidson's there to have a good time and he does have a good time. He's not as confrontational as he is perceived to be and as I already mentioned several times, perception is key. Hunter and Bob aren't bad umpires - far from it - but they get this bad rap, and guess what? In a world and profession where perception is key, that tends to affect people's attitudes towards them. Layne is simply guilty by association. Nothing more.

Again, this is all first hand experience, not from TV, not from the news, although you probably can see a little of those attributes shine through on ESPN or wherever. Joe West spoke about about pace-of-game between NYY and BOS, that got him on the ESPN/Big name media crap list, and now he's "controversial." Now all of a sudden, the media thinks Hawk Harrelson is the smartest guy alive. Is any of it true? Very little of it! Joe DOES call it like he sees it, it's how he's been so successful in his career, but again, perception is key, and that's why certain things happen. I'm not going to cite anything further about that other than personal experience - yes, first hand with these pro umpires - and professional knowledge.

Psychological diagnosis of arrogance? You would need a DSM for that along with a textual revision that actually classifies arrogance on its own as a disorder rather than a mere symptom of narcissism, which only affects 1% of the population in any case...... These umpires by and large are great guys, not the one dimensional people some of you make them to be. On the field, they tell a story and all have their own way of doing it. That's all.

Anonymous said...

I met Doug & Laz once in spring training, and those descriptions are spot on.

Anonymous said...

lol

Anonymous said...

Well, if you don't know them, or met them once, maybe they do come off as arrogant on a 1st impression. I'd like to know how you can judge someone after meeting them once, or never at all? Although people are very gullible and stupid, they do judge people right away without even getting to know them all the time. A person is scammed every day by a con-artist, people think he's a nice guy 5 minutes after meeting him, as you can see judging someone right away can be dangerous. These comments are just personal attacks. Calling a big league umpire a joker shows me you really have little insight into the world of professional umpiring. Criticizing an umpire for a bad judgement call is one thing. But to suggest his personality traits, without facts, are part of the problem is ludicrous. I cringe at the thought of your response. I'm sure it will include, "Just believe me, this is true because I know". Rex, if your going to call someone a joke, you should 1st look in the mirror. And it is you who has acted arrogant by making blanket statements, without facts, about people you couldn't possibly know well enough to characterize for the rest of us. I will ask you to cease your personal attacks in the future, and you should apologize for the previous posts, both publicly on this forum, and privately to the umpires in question.

Anonymous said...

I am starting to think tmac know nothing about umpiring....this is not rule 6.05k.. and read the comment on the rule as well.. this is a good no call by the HPU..

Anonymous said...

Certianly the contact was an issue for Farrell but surely the real issue was Andino running out of the basepath? He was guilty, as is Knight for ignoring 2 violations, of multiple infractions. - RM

tmac said...

I think the next step for this site is to make everyone be registered in order to comment. Seems to me like the people who fill the boards with personal attacks are always Anonymous. Also it seems like the same person is making the comments over and over again about the other members.. This site isn't about the members it's about UMPIRES and UMPIRING.. and commentary as such.

As for the call.. which i think is one person defending Brian Knight... if you believe that isn't interference.... Good luck to you!

Gil "R.O." said...

For better or for worse (and there are very valid arguments on both sides), we require all comments undergo a screening process before we "approve" their broadcast. While we have always allowed criticism of umpires' performances (mechanics, calls, etc.) and of other users' arguments, we have never (and never will) allow criticism of one user by another; likewise, "over the top" personal attacks which fall into the categories of "flaming," "trolling," or "defamation," are never allowed. Truth is a defense to defamation. Preponderant belief is not. We plan on codifying commenting guidelines prior to the start of next season. Any singular violation of certain criteria (such as flaming or posting flame-bait) may and has resulted in a post not being approved during the screening process. We do not merely censor posts by deleting the offending passage(s) and thereby altering their meaning. Either the post is completely removed or published in full. We have banned users in the past over inappropriate activity, and though there have been a few posts in this thread which have not been approved for broadcast, we see no need to take any action against any posters here, anonymous or otherwise, other than to not approve certain posts.

The UEFL was started as a forum in which to discuss the objective attributes of umpiring. In turn, the entire realm of subjectivity was left to one's discretion and we have had debates over those matters and will continue to. There's nothing wrong with disagreement, debate, and discussion.

That said, we believe everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, as logical or illogical as that opinion may be. Because we believe in that freedom of expression (in accordance with the aforementioned flaming/trolling guidelines), we have always and will continue to welcome anonymous contributions. What we will never do is welcome anonymous trolling or unproductive personal attack activity directed at anyone else.

Accordingly, the published posts above are the kinds of posts we tend to allow. Posts that negatively address a particular user's personal attributes or posting activity, rather than umpiring or other issues at hand, likely will not be published. There is no room for flaming and trolling here. If you find your post has not been published, you are welcome to edit your post, removing the offending portions as specified above, and re-submit. Even if the post is logical, well formed, and contains great points, if it falls under the "over the top" variety with trolling or flaming activity, it will not be published. Period.

Again, we will have a Rules Summit at the end of the season to discuss UEFL Rules changes. The UEFL Posting Guidelines will be codified at that time.

Anonymous said...

@Gil
I don't think you needed to explain yourself to us, it's your site, and you can edit it as you see fit. The explanation was wonderful, but I cannot agree with the idea. You say you don't allow posters to make personal comments about another poster. But you allow posters to make personal comments about MLB umpires. If a poster sites what country an umpire is from originally, that can be viewed as racist. You would not allow a post of mine where I wanted to call another poster a "joke", but yet you allow a registered member to call a MLB umpire a "joke".
"The crew from Hell" was also a comment you allowed to be posted. It's your site, you can do what you like. I just think I should be able to critique another poster, and make comments about them as they are doing to the MLB umpires. My non-published posts were just that. What I did was turn said posters own words on him, and accused him of the same thing he was accusing the MLB umpire of. But what your doing is deciding who can be called a name, and who can't. And that's a slippery slope.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous @ 934pm.. there is no basepath until a tag attempt is being applied.. you also need to read the rules... this is not running lane interference as he did nothing, the runner can run where ever he wants, but if he interfered ( which I believe he did not) then it should be called.. take notice of the Hp umpire given a safe signal, this is to let everyone know he saw the close to interference but it is nothing.

Post a Comment