Friday, May 18, 2012

Ejection 039: Tom Hallion (1)

HP Umpire Tom Hallion ejected Los Angeles Dodgers Manager Don Mattingly for arguing a check swing call in the top of the 3rd inning of the Cardinals-Dodgers game. With two out and one on, Cardinals batter Matt Carpenter was ruled to have successfully attempted to check his swing on a 1-2 pitch from Dodgers pitcher Ted Lilly by 3B Umpire Chad Fairchild.* Replays indicate that Carpenter was able to check his swing successfully, the call was correct. The call is now incorrect.^ At the time of the ejection, the Dodgers were leading, 4-1.The Dodgers ultimately won the contest, 6-5.

This is Tom Hallion (20)'s first ejection of 2012.
Tom Hallion now has 0 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + -2 Incorrect Call [Crewmate] = 0).
Crew Chief Tom Hallion now has 0 points in the UEFL's Crew division (0 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 0).
*Chad Fairchild is the calling umpire, Tom Hallion is the secondary umpire.
^After review, Quality of Correctness has been reversed in a 4-2 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 39th ejection of 2012.
This is the 23rd Manager ejection of 2012.
This is Don Mattingly's second ejection of 2012.
This is the Los Angeles Dodgers' fourth ejection of 2012.
This is the third ejection of the day.

Wrap: Cardinals at Dodgers 5/18/12 Wrap
Video: Mattingly is tossed by Hallion for arguing no swing call by Fairchild

19 comments :

Anonymous said...

There is no consistency whatsoever in the check swing call. That is what made Hamels plunk the Nats rookie- he felt he got a check swing call he did not yet earn/deserve. They might as well just flip a coin.

Anonymous said...

ok....I call heads.

Arik said...

Saw it live on MLB Network (just happen to go to the game when it happened) and from what I could tell, the denial of the appeal was correct. However, since there is no rule in OBR regarding what is and is not a checked swing it is hard to tell.

Best part of it was Vin Scully quoting Jocko Conklin. "There is no such thing as a half swing because there is no such thing as a half strike."

Turducken said...

Who is Jocko Conklin?

:P

tmac said...

Vin scully is awesome... we all should cherish the living legend while he does games... It's going to be a sad day in dodgertown when he is not behind the mic! I can't find a side angle anywhere but man does it look like a swing .. three check swings in the same AB.. yikes swing already!!!!

If anyone knows of a side camera please let me know

Big Marc said...

It's actually Jocko Conlan. Jocko had a cup of coffee in the bigs as a player. Umpired in the Bigs well into the 1960's. He died in the early 90's I thnk. And of course most have herd of him, he went into the hall of fame in 1974.
The famous Jocko story was Leo Durocher was kicking dirt on him, and actually kicked Jocko in the shins in the process. Jocko kicked him back!!!

update: Jocko had 96 hits in a little over 1 season in the bigs.

Anonymous said...

I challenge.

I think the bat breaks the plane. Hard to tell without a side angle definitively, but I think that he offers at the pitch.

Nate said...

I want to move to LA and become a.differs fan just because of Vin Scully. What a class act.

Nate said...

Dodgers... Thank you autocorrect.

Jeremy Dircks said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the Appeals Board.

Anonymous said...

Since there is no MLB definition of a checked swing - other than the umpire's judgment whether there was an intent to swing - what is there to review? Broken planes/wrists / leading edges really don't pertain in MLB

Anonymous said...

Vin Scully is a true Hall of Famer, where'd he pull that Jocko Conlan check swing quote from? No half swing because there is no half strike-genius umpire quote.

Anonymous said...

Why don't we just have every ruling challenged right away. I'm sick of people challenging just for fun.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:14, why the heck would you challenge based on that!?! That is not a definition of a swing! Figure it out! Every single time there is a check swing EJ idiots come out of the woodwork with this reasoning!

Big Marc said...

Maybe keep the challenge system the same, but use 1 league member, 2 registered non league members and 5 Anon as the minimun number of challenges that must be posted to initiate a review.
Jeremy, at this point I see no need for the review and extra work 1 challenge post from Anon generates.
I think things have changed a litle and far more Anon people are visiting. Of course if your ok with it, keep it how you like. (m2c)

BAPACop said...

As a non-league member I'm probably not the best person to be suggesting this, but I would say you should at least have to have the challenger present some sort of logical argument for their challenge. As opposed to an argument based on something that isn't even in the rules.

JPINFV said...

To echo what BAPACop said, I think that there needs to be some sort of actual argument, and something more than "I think ___ [nothing else]." I've challenged a few plays, but I also include time stamps from the video where applicable and rule quotes when I do. Why would I need 4 concurrences if I write a multiparagraph post laying out why I'm challenging a ruling (see Ejection 40: James Hoye (1))?

Jon Terry said...

So let me get this straight. Tom Hallion was asked to appeal a call. He did so, and got yelled at by a manager. And the manager got ejected. So, why didn't the manager yell at Fairchild, who made the actual call? Is he mad about the call, or mad about the appeal?

I find it amazing how managers (and the media) are always complaining about umpires who don't get help (see Laz Diaz), but then something like this can happen. Bitch when we don't appeal, bitch when we do appeal. Just like last year, when there were multiple ejections AFTER the use of replay in a game. What's the point if it doesn't prevent an argument?

Gil Imber said...

After review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Correct" has been reversed in a 4-2 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Four Appeals Board members elected to Overturn the Original Ruling, one elected to Confirm and one elected to Uphold it.

In reviewing this ruling, the Board considered whether or not the batter attempted to strike (swung at) one or more pitches during the at-bat in question.

In reversing the Original Ruling, tmac delivered the opinion of the Board:
In professional baseball the HP umpire probably should have called this a swing when I watched the play live I saw it as a swing and even though i can't find a side angle i saw nothing to change my mind.

yawetag offered a dissenting opinion:
I haven't been able to find a full-speed replay of the swing, so I can only go by the umpires' judgement and the slow-motion, straight-on replay. Without a full-speed replay, it's nearly impossible for me to determine intent of the batter; with full-speed, it's very difficult. Because of this, I can't find a reason to overturn the umpires' judgement. If it had been called a strike on the field, I'd also uphold it.

Gil offered a second dissenting opinion:
As previously opined in Ejection 027: Mike Muchlinski (1), the check swing call is ambiguous, incomprehensive and intangible: without conclusive evidence to suggest an intent to strike the pitch, I must offer my dissent and uphold the Original Ruling, for lack of clear and convincing evidence to suggest a conclusive reversal.

Therefore, the Board reverses the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: yawetag
Upheld: Gil
Overturned: tmac, Albetaumpire, BillMueller, RichMSN
Deferred: None
Abstained: Jeremy (Posted Original QOC)

Quality of Correctness has been reversed, 4-2.

Post a Comment