Thursday, June 14, 2012

Ejection 070: Jeff Nelson (2)

1B Umpire Jeff Nelson ejected White Sox center fielder Alex Rios for arguing a strike (swinging) call in the top of the 9th inning of the White Sox-Cardinals game. With none out and none on, Rios attempted to check his swing on a 0-0 cutter from Cardinals pitcher Jason Motte. Replays indicate Rios attempted to strike the pitch, the call was correct. The call is now incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the Cardinals were leading, 5-3. The Cardinals ultimately won the contest, 5-3.

This is Jeff Nelson (45)'s second ejection of 2012.
Jeff Nelson now has 0 points in the UEFL (2 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = 0).
Crew Chief Tim Tschida now has 3 point in the UEFL's Crew division (3 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 3).
*After review, the Original Ruling has been reversed by the UEFL Appeals Board in a 3-2 decision.
*Historical Appeals Board decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.*

This is the 70th ejection of 2012.
This is the 27th player ejection of 2012.
This is the 4th ejection of June 14, 2012.
This is the White Sox' 4th ejection of 2012, tied for 3rd in the AL Central (DET 7, KC 3).
This is Alex Rios' first ejection since May 1, 2011 (Cory Blaser; QOC = Incorrect).
This is Nelson's first ejection since May 31 (Tom Brookens; QOC = Irrecusable).
Jeff Nelson was the 2011 UEFL Umpire of the Year.


Jay said...

Close check swing call, I personally could have gone either way with this, but the Sox feed clearly shows Rios saying something to Nelson as he passes first base on the flyout, deserved ejection.

Anonymous said...

I think Hawk actually laughed at this one. Rios must have said something really stupid, because an ejection like this can't be for anything except the most egregiously poor kind of language.

Anonymous said...

There had to have been something magical said by Rios becqause there is no way Nelson would throw him out that quickly. I would also like to challenge this play, it looks like Rios might have held up and if the Hallion and Muchlinski ones can get overrturned than this one can too. I would at least like to see what the appeal board has to say. Challenge.

Anonymous said...


UmpsRule said...

Nelson doesn't seem to be a quick trigger guy and Rios has been ejected at least three times before, so I'm guessing this was warranted. However, it doesn't appear that Rios swung, so the QOC should be incorrect in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Jeff is correct. I take the challenge back. sorry.

Curt Crowley said...

Rios can join Youkillis in the race for the 2012 "Dumb Reason to Get Yourself Tossed" award. The check swing didn't look all that close. And even if it was, the checked swing didn't end the at-bat. Rios hit the next pitch and flew out.

What's his problem? That the checked swing call put him behind in the count, so he had to swing at a subsequent pitch (which he hit) that he did not want to swing at? Seems weak.

Anonymous said...

Mike Matheny gets tossed in St Louis for arguing the reversal of an apparent triple play. No video yet, but it sounded a little bit like the 1980 NLCS Astros/Phillies play with Vern Ruhle except the Cards only got one out.

Anonymous said...

There should not even be a challenge. There is NO way he swung.

That being said, umpires are not supposed to have rabbit ears and thin skin.

It seems about 30-35% of the current umpires in MLB missed that memo.

LOL, people bitch about Joe West. I can think of about 10 EASILY worse umpires.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, Jeff is correct. I take the challenge back. sorry."

This is discretionary. I am not sure there is a definitive right or wrong answer here, but to me the swing was checked. Unless I missed the memo, MLB does not have an unequivocal definition of what a checked swing is, and leaves it up to the HP ump to determine.

Anonymous said...

FYI: "10.1.4 a. ...when there is a question as to whether a batter’s “half swing” is such as to be called a strike. As an aid in deciding, the umpire may note whether the swing carried the barrel of the bat past the body of the batter, but final decision is based on whether the batter actually struck at the ball."

I'm a professional writer and certified English teacher. That language is ambiguous and borderline equivocal (intentionally open). Hmm, I wonder why. =)

RichMSN said...

Here we go with the rabbit ears crap again. If players don't want to get run, they shouldn't run their mouths. It's that simple.

Anonymous said...

Are we waiting for confirmation on the challenge or something? Just based on the language of every check swing, nearly everyone should be reviewed.

Gil Imber said...

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

Zac said...

Used to, the fans told us that umpires had rabbit ears when they went in the dugout and got an ejection. Now they have rabbit ears if they hear someone blast them from 10 feet away on the field. Basically the umpires should take any amount of abuse and do nothing about it.

Russ said...

So is this appeal just never going to be decided on.

Gil Imber said...

Russ, as prescribed by Rules 2-1-a-3 and Rule 6-5 [Comment], the deadline for the UEFL Appeals Board's decision concerning this specific appeal is July 8 (the final game before the All-Star game). Because of the difficult nature of the check swing call appeal, this specific appeal is ongoing and the decision not yet final. You may additionally refer to the Appeals Board page for the precise status of this and other Appeals.

This appeal is currently deadlocked at 2-2.

Gil Imber said...

After exhaustive review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Correct" has been reversed in a 3-2 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected to overturn the Original Ruling, one voted to uphold and one voted to confirm it.

Per Curiam Opinion:
As discussed ad nauseum in Ejection 039: Tom Hallion (1) and Ejection 027: Mike Muchlinski (1), the check swing call is ambiguous, incomprehensive and intangible. It is therefore fully open to Board interpretation with little or no stare decisis power in consideration of future rulings other than to reflect the finding in Hallion and Muchlinski that the call is subjective.

Dissenting Opinion, Gil:
Because of the ambiguous and subjective nature of this call, I must refer to my opinion given in Hallion and implicate its converse; without conclusive evidence to suggest an intent not 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: Albertaumpire
Upheld: Gil
Overturned: tmac, RichMSN, yawetag
Deferred: None
Abstained: Jeremy (Posted Original QOC), BillMueller (Vacation)

Quality of Correctness has been reversed, 3-2.

Post a Comment