Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Ejections: Greg Gibson (2)

1B Umpire Greg Gibson ejected Cardinals Manager Tony La Russa for arguing a safe call in the top of the 9th inning of the Brewers-Cardinals game. With none out and one on, Brewers batter Josh Wilson hit a sacrifice bunt. Wilson reached on a throwing error by Cardinals pitcher Marc Rzepczynski, as Gibson ruled first basemen Albert Pujols failed to touch the base. Replays indicate that although Pujols missed touching first base in his first attempt, he was able to contact the base on his second attempt before Wilson reached the base, the call was incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the Brewers were leading, 3-1. The Brewers ultimately won the contest, 5-1.

This is Greg Gibson (53)'s second ejection of 2011.
Greg Gibson now has 2 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (4 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = 2).
Greg Gibson is owned as a Primary Umpire by TonyTheRed, who is now tied for 24th in the UEFL with 8 points.
Greg Gibson is owned as a Primary Umpire by HIGHSCHOOLUMP, who is now tied for 24th place in the UEFL with 8 points.
Greg Gibson is owned as a Primary Umpire by BrooklynUmp, who is now in 27th place in the UEFL with 7 points.
Greg Gibson is owned as a Secondary Umpire by rasseul, who is now tied for 37th place in the UEFL with 0 points.
*Quality of Correctness was challenged and confirmed ("Incorrect" ==> "Incorrect").

This is the 153rd ejection of 2011.
This is the 73rd Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Tony La Russa's second ejection of 2011.

Wrap: Brewers at Cardinals 8/10/11 Wrap
Video: Gibson Runs La Russa for Arguing

27 comments :

Anonymous said...

What replay conclusively shows he touched the bag BEFORE the BR's foot touches first. I would suggest a reconsider of the "incorrect" ruling.

Vic said...

That was a horrific call by Greg Gibson. Looking right at the play and he doesn't see Pujols clearly come in contact with the base prior to Wilson touching? Awful.

It's completely conclusive @Anonymous 9:55pm. Check 36 seconds in and 49 seconds in.

Anonymous said...

Gibson points to the ground saying that Pujols touched BEHIND first base and none of the replays have a good angle on what he's seeing...

Anonymous said...

36 or 49 is not clearly showing it. especially the 49 compared to the angle of the 36 second (side view from dugout area). and if u slow it down at the 36 second clip to when the BR touches first.... conclusive to me means no doubt....this is not conclusive from these two angles.

Jeremy "jeruhmed" said...

Anonymous,

You are free to challenge this ruling, in which all available replays will be examined.

I just want to let you know we post the available video (if it exists). However, we do consult all broadcast replays available, more so than provided by MLB.com highlights, including MLBtv.

Anonymous said...

Neither of those replays show anything. I think he probably touched the base, but neither of those replays showed it...

Anonymous said...

I don't see a horrific call here. Inconclusive, maybe. Wrong maybe. Maybe correct even.

tmac said...

The Brewers Angle shows that the tip of Albert's foot had the back side of the bag... As for horrific call... i'm not so sure.... A lot of things to look for here and Gibson wasn't in ideal position to see it.

Missed call none the less. I will say this.. if you go by the replays that are shown in the mlb.com video and don't get to see the brewers cast... it's very dificult to see conclusively that the bag is touched.. but that's for purposes of this site only

Anonymous said...

I don't like to use the players reaction as a gauge for correctness of the call. But you could certainly tell that Albert really felt his foot was on the bag.
A runner arguing on a play isn't as impartial as fielder. A runner is generally using more energy, has more adrenaline in his body running, and makes contact with many things as the runner slides into the base. Head OR feet 1st, it's tough for a runner to feel a slight touch. But fielders feel the ball enter their glove and then they are not feeling any contact (generally) other than their feet or glove touching the runner or bag.

Bob4CrewChief said...

Greg should have ejected Pujols here. Pujols was being very demonstrative. I see no difference here than Marvin Hudson's past ejections. As for TLR, he was whining because the Brewers are running away with the division.

Bill said...

This is the kind of stuff that slays me...the pitcher makes a crap throw from 45 feet away, Pujols is dancing the tango with the first base bag, but it's Gibson that takes the hit for it. From the available angles, it's inconclusive at best. Not a huge Gibson fan, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not just blantantly missing this one as he is looking right at it.

Anonymous said...

tmac.. im sure you have no idea about the umpires and where they are suppose to be on every play.. Gibson is in the right spot, we do not have enough video footage to see the back angle, but the other angles looks like he does not touch the base. and to VIC.. horrific come on dude..really.

Anonymous said...

Tough spot for Gibby here. Calls him safe and this is the result. I agree with ANON1:37, I don't like to use players' reactions as a means of judging correct/incorrect. However It is difficult to go against a great moral individual like Albert. When it comes to honesty, he is at the top of the list in baseball. But he's still a champion playing to win in Mid-August.

Now if he calls him out and you see Albert dancing over there, trying to find the bag, that looks horrible from the Brewers dugout! We know base coaches are partial and I agree that runners have more energy exerted into the play so they are more emotional. Most likely Roenicke comes out and he gets tossed.

Just a tough spot for Greg.

Anonymous said...

I like Bill's take on this. Most of the time when there is an issue, it's because a player or players have screwed up and they just want to deflect the attention to the umpire. Because we all know, that if the fielder's throw pulls someone off the bag, it's obviously the umpire's fault.

Anonymous said...

Bill - I understand your thinking and agree with it for the most part (especially at the amateur level). Unfortuneatley,at the MLB level, the bottom line and all that really matters to the a manager is, was the outcome of the play ruled correctly? Despite the fact the the throw (which caused this whole mess) was horse sh!t and Pujols's attempt to touch the base was not really any better, MLB expects the correct call REGARLESS of the circumstances. Yes, its unfortunate MLB Umpires' jobs are sometimes made twice as hard because of player's & coaches mistakes... however, at that level, they don't want to hear those excuses or reasons - they just want the right call period. That, my friend, is one of the reasons they're "paid the Big Bucks" ;)

Anonymous said...

One other point to consider here... the MOST important thing to take from this play is WHY did Gibson not make any kind of "last minute" adjustment in his positioning? The general rule of thumb, depending on the foot work of the first baseman, is to position yourself in the baseline between 1B & 2B on throws coming from the "imaginary box". HOWEVER, when you don't read a "true throw", like in this situation, then you must make a "read step" in one direction or another to try and get a better angle to see how the play will develops. This is where I believe Gibson, with all due respect, went wrong. Yes, it was a horsesh!t throw, but he never made any kind of adjustment after Pujols caught the ball. If you think about it, once the throw pulled him off the bag, the play then turned into a foot/step race to the bag (kind of like when a pitcher receives a flip from a teamate while covering first base). Looking at the play ( ofcouser, from the comforts of my Lazy Boy watching it in several times in slow motion ;) , I think Gibson could have atleast attempted to RE-ADJUST his positioning, perhaps moving more towards the foul line, to better see Puljos's attempt to touch the inside part of the base.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is let's not get caught up in trying to prove whether the call was right or not, or even who's fault it is for why this EJ occured... but rather, lets learn something from this play so that when it happens to us, we will be better prepared to position ourselves and hopefully make the right call. Just my 2 cents..

Anonymous said...

Challenge. Even though there is no evidence to overturn, it should be called inconclusive based on the available video.

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review.

Bill said...

"Paid the Big Bucks" is correct, but I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that Gibson's pay is still a 10th of the pay of the two players who screwed up this play.

Gison maybe misses this call, and he's equine defecation; players get a hit 3 out of ten AB's and they make the all star team.

Anonymous said...

The ruling is based on all replay angles available, not the video available. The Brewers feed showed video that clearly showed it was a missed call, but I can see why Gibson missed it. But, it was clearly missed, the other feeds that do apply to the ruling on this site show conclusively that he touched the bag.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame the umpires are being so unprofessional. They're obviously still mad about the Molina-Drake incident, and they're continuing to make the Cardinals pay. Isn't an uncontested 4 game suspension enough? Especially since Drake missed the call?

And comparing the pay of the players and umpires is a joke. Pay is based on supply and demand. It's harder to hit a 100 mph fastball than it is to determine if it is a ball or strike; therefore there's a smaller supply of good players than good umpires, and so the players make more. It's simple economics.

Anonymous said...

Just for the record, Mr. Pujols makes 14.5 mil and poor old Rzepczynski only makes 429k so maybe that Little League throw is all you get for 429k. Maybe if he made more he could throw better. Gibson, a 12 year veteran probably makes around 250k, so he only makes about a 60th of the 2 players involved that screwed up this play. And La Russa was making 4.25 mil for 08 and 4.25 for 09. His new contract for 2010 should at least be in the 4.5 to 5 mil category which means Gibson makes a 20th of La Russa's pay. Heck, La Russa was making 333k back in 1987 managing Oakland.

Anonymous said...

How about the evil owners? How much do they make? Every time you hear the players are overpaid, make sure to remember that it's just a simple Labor VS Management issue. The players make so much because the owners are charging $15 for a hot dog. The players are overpaid because the owners have to give "so much" of the pie away. The owners maybe evil, but they are the smartest business people on the face of the earth. They know their customers, they know we will pay what they want to eat, and sit in their ballparks.

Gil "R.O." said...

This ruling has been challenged.

After review, 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. Replays angles, including replays not shown as part of the linked video, conclusively show the fielder tagging the base prior to the runner arriving.

Denied.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ Gerry Davis on this play, "Damnit Greg, I know you kicked that call and La Russa probably won't shut up about it, so I might as well start walking over."

Anonymous said...

Any chance you can get screen shots of these "conclusive" videos, and not just for this call, but future as well. From some random person coming on here, that's a lot of trust to put on something you don't show. That video may have proved it to you, but if you don't share it, your opinion is worthless.

Anonymous said...

I've disagreed with posted video's in regards to a ruling of quality of correctness before on this site. So I don't think saying Gil's opinion is worthless because he doesn't link to the video he's using for his opinion. He's the one to make the call, so it's a moot point. The way the site runs, somebody's got to end, a potentially endless argument. In the future however, when the site has 5,000 people trying to register to play, and that could be next year, it would be wise to use a "supreme court" system. You would have 12 of your trusted playing, or even non playing members participate by voting with you Gil, on a ruling that has been challenged. I do think it would add greatly to the integrity of the site as a non biased place to visit with regards to MLB ejections. On a side note, it also would sound cool when you announced a ruling by the 12 member panel by saying something like, "The call has been confirmed by a 11-1 vote"

Also, I wouldn't want to be the one to have to rule on the challenges and listen to all the whining. I get enough on that on the field. That's why I'm so dead sent against replay in MLB. Even after review, people cannot agree! Gil does fine. I really can't remember him going against the majority of posts, most agree, not all, most.

Post a Comment