Sunday, April 15, 2012

Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)

HP Umpire Dale Scott ejected Padres Manager Bud Black for arguing a fair ball call in the top of the 9th inning of the Padres-Dodgers game. With none out and two on, Padres batter Jesus Guzman squared to bunt a 0-0 fastball from Dodgers pitcher Javy Guerra, attempting to avoid being hit by the pitch before the ball rebounded toward home plate from the right handed batter's box. Dodgers catcher A.J. Ellis retrieved the ball near home plate, throwing to third baseman Juan Uribe to shortstop Dee Gordon to first baseman James Loney for a triple play. Replays indicate the ball hit Guzman's bat and was first contacted by Ellis in fair territory, in front of home plate and within the left handed batter's box, the call was correct. The call is now incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the contest was tied, 4-4. The Dodgers ultimately won the contest, 5-4.

This is Dale Scott (5)'s first ejection of 2012.
Dale Scott now has -2 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = -2).*
Crew Chief Dale Scott has 0 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 0).
*After review, the Appeals Board has overturned Quality of Correctness, 3-2-1 ("Correct" ==> "Incorrect")
*The Appeals Board's historical decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.

UEFL Standings Update
1) 6 points: TheGunsofHochuli
1) 6 points: millerump18
3) 5 points: JRD
4) 3 points: BillMueller, JohnShulockFan, Jeremy, nkcaump, Turducken, UmpAtty
10) 2 points: BONZ_kansascity, cyclone 14, hitit2me, Longballs, mtn335, Spence1222

This is the 6th ejection of 2012.
This is the 4th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is Bud Black's first ejection of 2012.

Wrap: Padres at Dodgers 4/15/12
Video: Dodgers turn a rare triple play, thanks to a great deal of confusion; Bud Black ejected by Dale Scott

112 comments :

Anonymous said...

Called a fair ball foul. Runners on first and second stopped running. Then changed his mind and called the fair ball fair. Triple Play.

kickersrule said...

The ejection is not in the box score on mlb.com No ejection video after the triple play either. they better post it eventually.

cyclone14 said...

EJ is in the box score now...going to be an interesting ruling on this one!

Tony Hendrix said...

What'll be interesting is when the press forces him to apologize in public.

kickersrule said...

Pretty easy incorrect call. You cant call the ball foul and then change your mind and call it fair. Once you call it foul the ball is dead. The only thing I could think is he put his hands up like that to get out of the catchers way, and never really did yell foul ball.

Anonymous said...

it looked initially like his hands went up to clear the catcher, and then he may have raised them a little higher, which could have been interpreted as signalling foul ball

Tony Hendrix said...

I think it was instinct or muscle memory that caused his hands to go up after he pulled them out of the catcher's way. If not, he would have realized he made a 'foul' signal and would not have pretended he didn't. I don't think he had any idea his hands went up.

Anonymous said...

Looks to me like he initially raised his hands to get out of the way, but then he started to call it foul. I'm guessing he should have waited until the catcher touched the ball before ruling fair or foul. Sadly, this will probably generate all kinds of anti-umpire garbage from the media.

Anonymous said...

I wonder who was the last guy to get tossed over a triple play?

Nate said...

http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_04_15_sdnmlb_lanmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=sd#gid=2012_04_15_sdnmlb_lanmlb_1&mode=video

Cricket said...

http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_04_15_sdnmlb_lanmlb_1&highlight_content_id=20655513&c_id=sd

The play. No ejection, though. Dale Scott f'd this one up. You cannot throw out your hands in a clear, distinct foul motion, then point fair and pretend everything's okay.

JPINFV said...

Did San Diego protest this?

Is something like this something a team can protest?

Anonymous said...

JPINFV, it is a judgement call you can not protest that. Obviously you are not an umpire.

JPINFV said...

@Anon: Cheeky. The fact that a clear foul mechanic was displayed immediately prior to pointing fair was what I'm interested in knowing about, not what the HP umpire wanted to call. I can't imagine that an umpire could display one mechanic while calling another would be considered a "judgement call." Look at the 3 second mark of the video and tell me that's not a foul mechanic.

Obviously you have no business in a comment thread.

JohnShulockFan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Let's please not allow this site's comment section to become vicious and spiteful like so many others. It was a perfectly legitimate question and I personally think that a team should be allowed to protest when an umpire seemingly makes contradictory calls like in this case.

Anonymous said...

So what are the padres suposed to protest? You can only challenge if you think he got a rule wrong, not a call. I seriously doubt he actually said foul ball. If he did then he would of ruled the play dead and then the dodgers manager would of been ejected instead since the ball was fair. You never yell fair ball so as long as he didnt say anything its ok that he called it fair. I do agree though that he did screw up and should of never raised his arms up.

JohnShulockFan said...

This call is technically correct, but we all know it's horse(poop) and would get you released from A ball.

Anonymous said...

This call would get you released from AAA ball! They treat minor league umpires like crap. Im glad I didnt make it past umpire school.

tmac said...

well i think this may cause a new section in the UEFL rulebook accidental to improper gesturing!!

As i think this call will be appealed no matter how it is ruled by Gil/Jeremy i will hold my thoughts until You guys appeal!! But this whole fiasco deserves a wow!!

Anonymous said...

Did Dale Scott screw up? In my opinion, yes.

Would it be wise to admit his error and apologize to the Padres? In my opinion, yes.

But he does not owe an apology to every single Padres fan who is upset about this. Baseball is just a game, and no fan should feel that he was wronged because a call went against his team.

JPINFV said...

@Anon:
Under that theory, an umpire can signal a called strike, but never make a verbal sound, thus allowing everyone else to assume that a strike has been called. However, since no verbal signal has been called, the call should be considered a ball and play continued. Since balls and strikes aren't arguable since their judgement calls in the purest sense, you would have no problem with that?

If he went from the "I'm trying to stay out of the way" type of hands up to making a fair signal, I'd agree that he only made one signal. However, there's a clear foul mechanic between the "I'm trying to stay out of the way" and pointing fair.

JPINFV said...

The above was directed at Anon 6:59 (should have clarified that).

Anonymous said...

I cant wait to see how much the media eats this up tomorrow. Sucks for Dale Scott cuz he would of been wrong no matter what way he called it. I do agree that techinally the call is correct since the ball was fair. JPIN You are right that you should be able to protest this but I do not think you can.

Anonymous said...

We can't see what Scott may or may not have said because his mask was still on, but it should be noted the Padre players were aware of his foul ball gesture and didn't even run. It will get very interesting if we find out that somebody heard Scott call it foul verbally.

Anonymous said...

didn't a similar thing happen with a drop-third strike mechanic a few years ago in the playoffs??

Anonymous said...

It wouldn't suprise me if the mlb will come up with a new signal for a foul ball and time out after this. It would be sweet if players and umpires signaled time out like they do in football by making there hands into a T. that would be funny.

Anonymous said...

Here's a video that shows the actual toss: http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20659155&c_id=mlb

Anonymous said...

Bud Black certainly has an argument here. If I was a manager, I'd probably get myself tossed unless I was satisfied by the explanation.

Anonymous said...

wow the SD annoucers said it was a good call and didnt even say anything about him calling a foul ball. Unless they said that after they cut the video off.

Anonymous said...

It is not my job as an umpire to coach the players during the game. I heard no foul call, therefore, I treat it as a live ball. I understand that signals are important but on a fair/foul call, voice is the most important part of the call. Again, not my job to tell the runners to quit running, that is for the coach. Players are taught from the youngest age to run when you hit the ball until told differently. Just because you now make millions playing a child's game does not mean you should not hustle when the ball is contacted and could be fair.

JPINFV said...

@Anon 7:15 and tmac:

I think that is what makes this a tricky issue. The rules, both of the fantasy league and OBR are written with the idea that the umpire calls the outcome, but isn't party to the play itself. Calls can either be right or wrong based on either judgement or rule interpretation, but rarely do those affect the play being called, especially to this degree, and especially at this level.

Jay said...

If the triple play stands and Bud Black isn't ejected, San Diego needs a new manager. If it is a foul ball and Don Mattingly isn't tossed, the Dodgers need a new manager. Either way, someone has to be thrown out of this game-even if Scott doesn't have that false or confusing signal, the play is so unique that it almost requires someone get ejected via argument with the umpire.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 7:32,
Really, the vocal call is the only one that matters? I think I'm going to test that theory of yours the next time I have the bases. When R1 swipes 2B safely, I'm going to say nothing and just clench my right fist. Then, when the runner steps off the bag and F4/F6 tags him, I'll yell "HE'S OUT!" When the manager comes out to argue, I'll point out while I may have clenched my fist, I never actually said "out" so the runner should have never assumed he was out. If that very reasonable explanation doesn't satisfy him, I'll just say, hey it's not my job to coach your players.
All sarcasm aside, it is admirable of you to come to Mr. Scott's aid in his time of need. But he kicked this one, plain and simple. As much as we might want to, there is no way to explain it away. What we SHOULD do is try to understand how and why this happened and try to think of ways to avoid having it happen in the first place. That way, we can all become better umpires.

Anonymous said...

I think the time/time out/ foul ball call is a lame signal anyway. They need to come up with a signal that looks cooler.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 7:54
I did not say that the vocal signal was the only part that mattered. I said it was more important. The differentiation of the fair/foul call is the voice with mechanic on a foul versus the fair point mechanic. The fair call and swing strike/foul tip mechanic are the only mechanics delivered without accompanying voice mechanic. The point I was making that are more pieces in the mechanics than just the visual signal. I can understand Dale's reaction to a 90 mph fast coming into a batter, the bat coming toward him and the catcher also hitting him in an attempt to catch the pitch. He was moving to get out of the way and trying not to interfere with the catcher and reacting to everything he is seeing. It is hard until you are actually in that situation to process everything he saw in order to make the decision. I guess they should start teaching in umpire school for you to avoid any movement as it may be construed to be a signal for the players to stop playing. It is a crappy situation whatever way you slice it. I watched the video about 20 times, can never hear a foul call, do not see any evidence that he intended to call the ball foul as he emphatically pointed the ball fair once he was sure it was fair. I agree the hands in the air might not be best option getting of the way there, but a good call as the ball was fair.

tmac said...

@ 7:54 anon

Ok here you bring up an interesting point how and why did this happen. This is a complicated answer and the only way on this particular play that we know for sure is to be in Dale Scott's head.

I think it's possible(almost certain) he lost the ball as the batter squared to bunt.. Dale went by the batter's reaction that it hit him and put his hands in the air with no voice to cover himself from it being a hit by pitch or a foul ball... IN a split second he realizes (and i can't begin to tell you how small a split second is) the ball hit the bat and Dale believes it went off of the batter body either his chest or leg or foot.... He then defies all logic and decides to point the ball fair... This happens when we lose site of the baseball... It simply could not be avoided though in this particular play!!

As for the incorrect mechanic once you kill a ball it's dead. As many of you have read me say on here you CAN NOT unring the bell... You CAN NOT turn a foul ball fair and put runners in jeopardy... While i believe in the worsT case they get two outs on this play a triple play might have happened had the foul mechanic not been given. ok and I feel like I haven't even scratched the surface of this play!! The good thing about this play is it's taking the focus off his horrific strike zone. Burn the tape to this game Dale AND fast!!

tmac said...

One more thing... that is bugging me.. if some of the umpire apologists on this site (usually anon) can't see that Dale makes a DISTINCT foul mechanic then PLEASE tell me what that mechanic was. did he see someone with a gun perhaps reggie jackson from Naked Gun... There is NO way you can EVER have creditibility as an umpire if you don't own up to mistake once in while.. In my nine years on a professional field I can tell you NOBODY likes a guy that NEVER makes a mistake.. and we HAVE all worked with guys like that... SO I guess to sum up I hope that the guys that continually apologize for umpire mistakes on this site and NOT young up and coming umpires but older gentlemen!!

Anonymous said...

@Anon 8:16,
When the ball is bunted, Scott raises his arms kind of half-heartedly, which I agree was probably an accidental reaction to everything going on in front of him. But then, he raises his arms a second time, this time with emphasis, which looks like a crisp foul mechanic. In fact, when I saw the video the first time, I assumed that Scott had meant to call the ball foul the first time he raised his arms and was just trying to sell the call when he emphatically raised his arms the second time. Whether he intended to call the ball foul or not, I think you have to make this one a foul ball. While that would be unfair to LA and might well result in Mattingly's ejection, I think it would be preferable to the outcome we saw, with a team going from R1, R2, 0 out to 3 out, side retired in the 9th inning of a tie game, (almost) entirely because of umpire error. As you said, there is no good choice here, but one stinks a lot less than the other.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what signal Dale Scott made, the Padres runners did not run when the ball was struck, both the runners at 1st and 2nd are still on their respective bases when the ball is tossed to that base. It would appear likely that a triple play would have occurred anyway if Scott had not made the awkward signal.

Cricket said...

I agree that the TP was going to occur without Scott screwing it up - well done by the Dodgers catcher.

However, after watching this at least ten times, it is very clear that Scott distinctively extends his arms into a "Foul" signal after he had extended them to get out of the way.

I do not believe he should be awarded points for this ejection. Technically, he got the call right, but in reality, he is responsible for the ejection.

This reminds me of a Bobby Cox ejection two years ago when the HP Umpire distinctively signaled strike, did not say "ball," and then acted as if he had called a ball all along; it nullified a Braves strike 'em out-throw 'em out doubled play and turned into a walk for first and second with 1 or fewer outs. Ultimately, "ball" was the correct call, but the HP's actions were the sole cause of the ejection. Does anyone have the link for that?

Anonymous said...

Dale Scott eddings'd the Padres. Doug Eddings: the inventor of the I-made-the-arm-motion-but-I-didn't-say-anything-so-I-can-change-my-mind mechanic would be proud. Perhaps Dale Scott studied Eddings performance in the 2005 ALCS?

Jim said...

Wow, listening to Vin Scully, unless you knew better, you'd think he was a Padres announcer, absolutely no homerism there. Even after Gordon hit the walk-off single, Scully said, "the Dodgers got an unbelievable break, I believe, in the top of the ninth inning. Two on, nobody out, the bunt called fair, although the players might have misinterpreted thinking the bunt was called foul." Meanwhile, listening to SD, you hear them credit Scott with making a great call.

Talk about role reversal.

Anonymous said...

Challenge

Gil Imber said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 10:38

Very similar, Eric Cooper
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=5982611&c_id=atl

J said...

Triple play happens here regardless of the mechanics. Ellis makes a heads up play, the runners would have been out regardless; meanwhile, the batter was going to be out because he's staggering around home plate acting like he got hit by the pitch. It's a triple play with or without Dale Scott's hands.

Anonymous said...

That same Cooper play was ruled by this league as a NEC on 5/7/09. Someone explain the difference.

Anonymous said...

No doubt dale used an improper mechanic....but what runner looks at an umpire for a call. To take the time to look at an umpire for his mechanic would put the runner at a disadvantage. Fair foul calls are actually declared via voice, ie that's foul or foul ball. So runners should continue running until they hear the ball declared foul regardless of what they think an umpire is gesturing with his hands.
To allow otherwise would create kaos on the field by allowing runners to protest that any movement by the calling umpire created the impression the ball was declared foul. So the no voice no call technique works just fine. The brief replay I saw I did see dale making an improper mechanic but did not hear the vocal determination of a foul ball. Some of the blame here goes to lazy runners too.

Anonymous said...

There's a story from, I believe, Harry Wendelstedt, where he signaled strike but voiced "ball". I also saw it once when I was in the minors watching another crew. According to the first story, when the manager came out, Harry said "You guys down here heard ball, but 40,000 in the stands saw strike. We're going with that one." This situation sort of reminded me of that. Dale definitely confused everyone. As a baserunner on this play, you are watching everything at the plate to make sure the ball gets down. So they definitely saw the "foul" signal from Dale and then didn't run. The fair outcome would have been to stick with the foul call, verbalized or not. The runners were put at a disadvantage. That's my view. Take it for what it's worth.

Anonymous said...

Definitely looked like he signaled foul after initially moving his hands up and out of the way.

The runners still should have run until absolutely sure,so they were wrong.

I like Dale Scott,but he really messed this one up.

Anonymous said...

Given the recent history of the Padres announcers, it is astonishing if they didn't go after the ump. As for Vin Scully, it's interesting that the Eric Cooper situation was brought up because he called that one in a similar way. And of course, Bobby Cox was gonna get tossed there.

Anonymous said...

In 2009, it was numerous postseason umps, such as Phil Cuzzi, Tim McClelland and C.B. Bucknor.

In 2010, it was Jim Joyce.

Last year, it was Jerry Meals.

Looks like the early umpire candidate for the media punching bag is Dale Scott.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone see the exchange between Black and Scott leading to the ejection? Did it appear that Black's reaction warranted the toss?

Anonymous said...

Anyone that has been there should know in a play like that all hell breaks lose and the umpires first job is to get out of the way. When we get out of the way, the hands do go up but the umpire made the right call. No verbal "foul" and he immediately called the force play out.

Should be no further questions except from the "cheap seats".

Anonymous said...

Another item that should not be overlooked was his hands went up he did not keep them up like a foul ball call. On a play like that he would have also "sold" the call.

Anonymous said...

Play until the whistle...haven't we all heard that since we were kids?

Sure, you could easily argue and convince many that Scott gave a foul signal just before making a fair ball gesture; but none of the baserunners were sincerely trying to advance. Tie game, ninth inning? One poster said that Scott should apologize to the Padres, but not the fans. Using that theory, shoudl the Padres be apologizing to the fans--being triple played in a ninth inning tie game? At the very least, the batter knew it was being called fair--did I miss his hustle down the baseline? while the ball was being lobbed through the infield?

JPINFV said...

I wonder how long it's going to take for the first running to just flat out ignore a Dale Scott foul call. After all, if you can't trust his mechanic, why put yourself in the position to be put out?

It would almost be like the football coin toss a few years ago where the ref heard the wrong heads/tails call and the next time he refed that team's game they brought out big cardboard signs. Unfortunately, I don't think the first time a runner ignores Scott's foul call that it would be done in jest.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the ref (Phil Luckett) wasn't entirely to blame for the confusion. Jerome Bettis called he-tails, as if he couldn't decide which one he wanted.

Anonymous said...

That football game was awesome because the lions won in OT on thanksgiving. GO LIONS!

Anonymous said...

I think it's also important to note that Scott's crew treated the situation like a fair ball, never once did another umpire on that crew signal foul or stop working the play: CB Bucknor immediately took off for foul territory to get in position to signal his out, Angel Campos similarly ruled the out at second and Bill Miller did the same at first base. Obviously, this wasn't a situation in which the other umps had a foul, never did they mirror a foul call.

zcr57 said...

The call was correct, but Scott's mechanics were terrible.

Anonymous said...

I can understand that if he put his arms up once, it was to get out of the way, but after that he put them up more forcefully again before then pointing it fair.

Jeapu man said...

Should the UEFL "legislate" mechanics? That's a tough call to make. We're obviously looking at a great call, as far as fair/foul is concerned. If Scott's only signal was fair, we'd all be talking about how great the call was.

But because he had a momentary spasm or whatever it was that froze him into putting his arms up twice, we have controversy. In my opinion, that out at third is made no matter what, there's a very high probability the out at second is made as well and as for the out at first, the batter is not running—he's acting like the pitch hit him. With or without Scott, the Dodgers turn this triple play.

Still, the mechanics were borderline at best and screwed up at worst, something that will get you docked in camp or school more than kicking an actual call. Though the goal is to get the play right—which he clearly did here—sometimes it's that hesitant gesture that gets you into real trouble.

If we're using Cooper as precedent, I'd agree with keeping this call correct because of the newer rule about "communication." If not, I can see this as incorrect, though I would disagree.

Anonymous said...

End call was right, mechanics weren't. Credit the catcher for playing through, fault the runners for not running and the batter for faking a HBP.

tmac said...

@ jeapu... this can NOT be considered a great call in any way.. but lets just say the foul mechanic never happened it can not be a great call as he was 3rd base line extended and made a call on a ball that was to the first base side of home plate.... No angle... If it was clearly a fair ball then the call was a no brainer.. the only reason he was selling the call that hard and pointing that many times was b/c he realized he killed the play and needed to sell the BLEEP out of it!!

Anonymous said...

I would have to argue that the call is incorrect. It is not possible to make a triple play on a foul ball. In fact the call is doubly incorrect because he called it foul (I don't really care that he called it fair afterward - after you call it foul it's foul) when it was fair - then he allowed a triple play to stand on a foul ball call. If you signal foul - that is what is observed and everyone reacts accordingly.

He should get 2 incorrect calls on this one play!

Anonymous said...

What a unique train wreck of a play. I agree with the poster that suggested that this play would have resulted in an ejection no matter what... If the call is foul, Matting,y will be tossed, it's a triple play, three out swing in a tied ball game's ninth inning. That is absolutely critical, it's huge!

And Scully is awesome, so happy he's back for another year. He hit basically every point in his analysis.

In the slow-mo replay, he pointed out Scott raising his arms as if to get out of the way, pointed out that Scott raised his arms for a second time, so that by the time he pointed fair, the Padres were confused and all heck broke loose.

As for AJ Ellis, Scully said he did exactly what a catcher should do, he fielded a loose ball and completed the play, and let the umpires make the final decision. For Bud Black, Scully said he's fit to be tied, from a long and frustrating series to this three out killer of a call, it was almost certain that the skipper would get tossed there.

Anonymous said...

I agree with anon from 2:31.

If the ump calls it foul, the play is over. How can he then change the call to fair when the ball is already dead?

Anonymous said...

is the play under review for the challenge? i cannot see how scott can be 'rewarded' with correct ejection points for such poor mechanics that lead to the ejection

Anonymous said...

In basketball and football, there's a rule about "intent to blow the whistle" when it comes to instant replays, reviews and game clock issues. If there's no intent to make a call, an inadvertent signal is disregarded, though an inadvertent whistle can never be disregarded. So did Scott actually say foul ball? It appears Ellis never heard it, Guzman didn't hear it and neither did the runners. They did however go off the gesture. But it loos and sounds like Scott never actually said foul ball.

Gil Imber said...

Yes, this ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL's Appeals Board.

Anonymous said...

This has got to be one of the most commented-on posts in UEFL history.

Jack said...

Ok, so Scott got confused, it's a foul ball. Reverse the triple play and San Diego wins, it's all Scott's fault. This was a no win situation for Scott, no matter what his call was.

JPINFV said...

@Jack: It's a tied game in the top of the 9th. I think it's pertinent to grant the Padres a run in that situation, but nothing is guaranteed (they could have kept the rally going or folded... we don't know). The Dodgers came back and scored at least 1 run in the bottom of the 9th. That leads me to think that, at worst we go to extra innings or the Dodgers win anyways.

Anonymous said...

In the Eric Cooper video the announcer makes reference to a game in St. Louis where two umpires converged on a base and made different calls. Does anyone know this game or have a link to it?

See 1:30
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=5982611&c_id=atl

Anonymous said...

Phil Cuzzi blew another call Today in New York. Called Jamey Carroll out trying to steal when he was clearly safe and frankly it was not even close. I hate to say this but it seems like every time there is a close call Phil Cuzzi does not get it right, no matter what kind of call it is. Oh, and he is working Twins@Yankees. Remember what happened in the 2009 Playoffs?

Anonymous said...

About the game in St. Louis referenced in an above comment:

That's a tough one. That particular announcer, Vin Scully, has been calling Dodger games for over 60 years. The game he mentions could have been a very, very long time ago.

Anonymous said...

Re: Anon 4:20
Scully is referring to Maury Wills, who played for the Dodgers from 1959-1966 and 1969-1972. Not sure there's video of that one ;)

Anonymous said...

So did Wills wind up safe or out?

Anonymous said...

I hear Vanover had a bad zone today. I wonder how long MLB will let this go.

Anonymous said...

so did we break the record for most comments on one post in UEFL history yet?

tmac said...

@ anon 6:02 Vanover Actually was pretty good today only missed 14 pitches but his consistency of zone was very good...

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=4&day=16&year=2012&game=gid_2012_04_16_tbamlb_bosmlb_1%2F&prevDate=416

I do think ESPN may be showing his last few ball strike calls... The one at the end of the game to Ross was gross... But actually was his worst miss of a pretty good game!

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:02 here: Thanks tmac. I saw the remark in umpchat above and had seen a screen capture from the Ross at bat. I was also remembering his performance last Wednesday. I guess I was too quick to assume a poor outing.

Gil Imber said...

Yes, this post officially has the most comments.

Previous record, Discussions: 2011 World Series, 67 Comments

This post: 84 comments and counting.

cgreen said...

Re: The game Dodgers-Cardinals game years ago referenced by Scully.

The game was in 1969. The two umpires involved were John Kibler and Ed Vargo. Here is a brief article about it, including a picture.

http://midwestump.blogspot.com/2010/02/john-kibler-nl-umpire-1928-2010.html

Anonymous said...

That's a great pic. Maybe the oddest ump pic I've ever seen.

Anonymous said...

According to Umpchat, Lance Barrett gets his first big league toss, heaving Don Cooper. I will agree with Rusty, I have heard Hawk Harrelson complimentary of umps on a couple of occasions last year, Jim Reynolds in one game and Jeff Nelson in another. I believe it was the same game for Nelson where he tossed out Alexei Ramirez, though I think the eject came after Hawk's complimentary remarks.

Penwhale said...

In this case - as calling the ball foul kills the play, the "correct" thing to do is to let the play run and then come back to look at it later (that's what umpire deliberation is for).

Anonymous said...

@Penwhale: I suppose so, but if he has already killed the play, what is there to deliberate about?

Anonymous said...

My favorite number......9.01c. The boys got the call right. It was a fair ball, bad mechanic but that shouldn't penalize the Dodgers. Everyone is so worried about the Padres, someone is going to be unhappy. Better to get the call right, then try and sort out than be wrong and try and sort things out.

Anonymous said...

It's very simple. He called it foul. He cannot then change it to fair when the ball is already dead.

Gil Imber said...

In re Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)

After review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Correct" has been overturned in a 3-2-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected Overturn the original QOC, two elected to Confirm or Uphold the original QOC and one voted to defer the original ruling.

During review, the Appeals Board found that while the play had been correctly adjudicated, the HP Umpire incorrectly signaled the ball dead, which confused the offensive team and its base runners.

The Board rejected the argument that UEFL Rule 6-1-b-6-a was applicable to a situation of false mechanics, allowing the circumstance of an incorrect mechanic resulting in the application of an incorrect Quality of Correctness.

In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "This is a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic....An incorrect mechanic is almost like getting a call right by dumb luck. In this case a misleading mechanic puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play... In any case it's my belief that from a mechanical standpoint you can not kill a play like that and change your mind it's as bad as calling a guy out on a catch in the outfield geting guys to go back to their bases and switching to a no catch call.."

In writing for the minority, Albertaumpire opined, "[Scott] did not even know that his hands went that high as he was backing to get out of the way. Nor would he think he put his hands that high until seeing the video."

This ruling will hold limited precedent influence over future UEFL/QOC decisions in regards to mechanics and false or unclear signals.

Overturned.

Confirmed: Albertaumpire
Upheld: Jeremy
Overturned: tmac, RichMSN, yawetag
Deferred: BillMueller
Abstained: Gil (Posted original QOC of "Correct")

Quality of Correctness has been overturned, 3-2-1.

JohnShulockFan said...

Great decision by the Board.

tmac said...

I'm glad we pleased at least one person! Let the debate continue!!

Dave D said...

Agreed. Great decision.

Glad to see the process work, and work to this end.

Anonymous said...

well, slow down Dale and get a look - it's neither fair nor foul til you decide and getting the call absolutely right (in this case waiting that extra second before gesturing for the catcher to field the ball) is critical........players - you bear your own responsibilities: Run you jackasses - cause if it's fair there's gonna be at least two out and if it's foul there'll be no outs and you can return to the bases.......players identify themselves as liberal politicians for blaming someone else (in allowing the umpire to dictate the decision - run or not - they MUST MAKE FOR THEMSELVES)........correct or incorrect we've focused on the wrong set of characters (umpire v. manager rather than players v. themselves)

Anonymous said...

I'm glad (and a bit surprised) to see the overturn, but does anyone have a quote from Dale Scott about what happened? He would be the one to know, after all.

Gil Imber said...

We have no statement from Scott himself, but we do have a statement from MLB's Peter Woodfork, Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations:

“After review and discussion with the umpire, we have determined that the call itself of a fair ball was correct. However, while making the call, there was an incorrect mechanic, which appeared to confuse San Diego’s base runners. At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field. After reviewing the entire situation following the game, the umpire realizes his hands were in an exaggerated upward appearance similar to a call that would indicate a dead ball. While we all agree that it was a fair ball that did not hit the batter, the umpire recognizes that the proper mechanic was not executed as he tried to avoid the catcher.”

Anonymous said...

Thanks Gil. Somewhat surprising if Scott has not commented.

cyclone14 said...

thanks for posting that, and great decision by the appeals board!

Jimmy Jack said...

Awesome! I love the fact that the appeals board decision gives the actual opinions behind the various votes. They both make sense, I love seeing that.

JPINFV said...

It will be interesting to see if the game has any effect on the post season, either with the Dodgers making it or the Padres (hehe... who am I kidding with this one) not making it.

Anonymous said...

Interesting point JPINFV, but by the end of the season this may have been forgotten.

Big Marc said...

In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "This is a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic....

2 good,spot on, kudos!

Big Marc said...

Anonymous said...
well, slow down Dale and get a look - it's neither fair nor foul til you decide and getting the call absolutely right (in this case waiting that extra second before gesturing for the catcher to field the ball) is critical........players - you bear your own responsibilities: Run you jackasses - cause if it's fair there's gonna be at least two out and if it's foul there'll be no outs and you can return to the bases.......players identify themselves as liberal politicians for blaming someone else (in allowing the umpire to dictate the decision - run or not - they MUST MAKE FOR THEMSELVES)........correct or incorrect we've focused on the wrong set of characters (umpire v. manager rather than players v. themselves)


Excellent Post!!!! Put your name on it. I betting you have pro ball expierence, who ever you are. Nice job again.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, it's surprising that this blew over with minimal media coverage.

Anonymous said...

In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "This is a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic....An incorrect mechanic is almost like getting a call right by dumb luck. In this case a misleading mechanic puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play... In any case it's my belief that from a mechanical standpoint you can not kill a play like that and change your mind it's as bad as calling a guy out on a catch in the outfield geting guys to go back to their bases and switching to a no catch call.."

In writing for the minority, Albertaumpire opined, "[Scott] did not even know that his hands went that high as he was backing to get out of the way. Nor would he think he put his hands that high until seeing the video."

Can we call them the Supreme Court Justices of umpiring?

Gil Imber said...

Sure...

Cricket said...

Just for future clarifications (and I cannot help this considering I am in law school):

When only half the Court agrees to something, the ruling of the Court of Appeals stands - a majority vote is required to change the Court of Appeals decision. If using this principal, and applying it to UEFL, the original call by Gil would stand because only 3 of the 6 Appeals Members voted to change the call.

Also, "minority" is never used; rather, use "dissent" to clarify those who disagree with the majority or plurality opinion. (Pluralities are a whole other story I will refrain from discussing).

Just thought I'd offer the insight. I personally agree with the Appeals Board and am pleased by the decision to overturn.

Gil Imber said...

The Appeals Board runs off of a relative majority of fixed membership structure (as opposed to a simple or even absolute majority): Because the decision to defer is generally a last resort, the fixed membership specifically excludes abstained & deferred; a majority achieved within the confines of this fixed membership is sufficient for decision-making, which may create the false appearance of a plurality (such as with this decision). Conversely, deferment does invoke plurality.

For instance, while this decision of 3-2-1 might appear to follow plurality, it does not. A decision of 2-1-2 (wherein two votes to overturn, one to confirm, two to defer) would result in an overturn. A decision of 2-2-2 or 2-2-1 would result in a casting vote, which generally would observe Speaker Denison's rule to vote in favor of the status quo (confirm). Because deferment exclusively invokes plurality, a decision of 1-2-3 or 2-2-3 would result in a deferred QOC (likely irrecusable).*

*Vote count varies as Appeals Board members abstain due to conflict of interest (e.g., if I posted the original QOC, unless compelled to issue a casting vote), vacation, etc.

Ergo, the majority opinion may be deemed a relative majority opinion, which holds the same weight as would an absolute majority opinion. And the minority will become the dissenting.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Absolutely not. Rules interpretation and application are the only things that are protestable. This is a judgement call..

Post a Comment