Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Ejection 078: Mike DiMuro (2)

3B Umpire Mike DiMuro ejected Indians third baseman Jack Hannahan for unsportsmanlike conduct in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Indians-Yankees game. With two out and one on in the top of the 7th, Hannahan hit a 1-2 fastball from Yankees pitcher Phil Hughes to left fielder Dewayne Wise, who was ruled to have caught a ball while tumbling into the stands to end the half inning. Though replays indicate the catch was never made (indeed a fan several seats away from where Wise landed came up with the loose ball), this call is irrecusable under UEFL Rule 6-2-b-5.* At the time of the ejection, the Yankees were leading, 5-0. The Yankees ultimately won the contest, 6-4.

This is Mike DiMuro (16)'s second ejection of 2012.
Mike DiMuro now has 6 points in the UEFL (4 Previous + 2 MLB + 0 Irrecusable Call = 6).
Crew Chief Tom Hallion now has 1 point in the UEFL's Crew Division (0 Previous + 1 Irrecusable = 1).
*After review, Reason for Ejection has been affirmed in a 5-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.
*Historical UEFL Appeals Board decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.*


UEFL Standings Update

This is the 78th ejection of 2012.
This is the 30th player ejection of 2012.
This is the Indians' fifth ejection of 2012, 2nd in the AL Central (DET 7; CWS, MIN 4; KC 3).
This is Jack Hannahan's first ejection since April 14 (Gary Darling; QOC = Irrecusable [Fighting]).
This is Mike DiMuro's first ejection since April 8 (Bruce Bochy; QOC = Correct).
On May 9, 2011, DiMuro also ejected Dodgers 3B Juan Uribe and Mattingly for arguing a previous call.

Because of the nature of this call, DiMuro spoke with a pool reporter after the game.
"Now that I see the tape it's obvious that the ball fell out of his glove. In hindsight, I should have asked him to show me the ball since he fell into the stands and out of my line of vision. [In the 8th, Hannahan] told me to reference the tape replay and that is why I ejected him."
This mea culpa is not to be confused with an apology, such as the one given by Tim Welke after his big miss.

Wrap: Indians at Yankees, 6/26/12
Video: Wise Dives into Stands in Catch Attempt, DiMuro Incorrectly Declares Batter Out
Video: "Must C: Call"; Hannahan Ejected After Controversial and Conclusively Incorrect Call

Video: Wise's Phantom Catch from Multiple Angles, Broadcasts; Also Features Ejection of Hannahan (UEFL)

62 comments :

Anonymous said...

really bad call.

Anonymous said...

Give credit to the fan considering without him hannahan would not have been out and would not get ejected

Anonymous said...

I think this play has just defined the opposite of the Jeffrey Maier play. There's interfering with action and then there's this, picking up a ball rolling on the floor in the spectator area, even holding the darn thing up to anyone who will notice. Unfortunately, DiMuro did not and completely blew the call. I'm surprised that no one noticed how badly missed this call was in real time.

JohnShulockFan said...

Wow. I would certainly understand if DeWayne Wise ended up with the ball, but his glove was empty. This is Tim Welke caliber.

Anonymous said...

DiMuro got way too caught up with the sensationalism of this play. Pity.

Jared said...

Interesting how DiMuro got caught with that Mattingly/Uribe play last year (also a wrong call, I may add), where the guy argues only after seeing the replay a half inning later and by then, it's an automatic ejection because he's bringing up a previous play, regardless of how badly the call was blown. And coincidentally, the 2011 call was also a third base call and happened as the Dodgers were going from offense to defense.

Turducken said...

Do you have the ball?

http://deadspin.com/5921597/the-greatest-trick-dewayne-wise-ever-pulled-was-convincing-the-world-he-caught-this-ball?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

UmpAtty said...

DiMuro's gotta get out there quicker than that. Looks like he was "Sunday morning jogging it". A little hustle would have gone a long way.

kickersrule said...

Im normally in favor of an umpire getting points for an ejection. However this one is horrible. It is 100% that he got this call wrong but just because he waited until the next half inning to argue it the call is correct. Does it even pay for me to challenge this. I dont know the rule and I dont care. I dont want to read all the crazy rules you have on here. This is 100% incorrect call but he still gets positive points. Doesnt really make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

I will challenge this just to see what the Appeals Board has to say. While the Dale Scott play obviously sets forth no precedents, and sets forth no rules, I don't see how you could possibly award points for such an egregiously bad call.

Anonymous said...

I'll go ahead and challenge. Maybe the board will grant an 'egregiously bad call' exemption or something, though yeah, as far as airtight rules about sportsmanship are concerned, this one is pretty set in stone. You just can't argue calls an inning after they happen!

Anonymous said...

Looks like Anonymous 7:50 beat me to the punch (I'm anonymous 7:51). Haha.

Turducken said...

DiMuro: "Now that I see the tape it's obvious that the ball fell out of his glove. I should've asked him to show me the ball."

...Really!?

Gil Imber said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
[im]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mKipNAgvgNA/T-p2bRaw3lI/AAAAAAAAAe4/xrizniLZI50/s226/Screen%2520shot%25202012-06-26%2520at%25207.55.10%2520PM.png[/im]

Anonymous said...

the actual ejection is now up on mlb.com

Anonymous said...

Can we just get instant replay already? Getting it right is more important than getting it quickly.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the embedded video violate MLB content and dissemination policies? Does CloseCallSports.com have an license to distribute MLB content?

Anonymous said...

Not this argument again - no websites or small news agencies could exist. It's called fair use and covers, among other things, news reporting.

Check it: http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:03, this is NOT a good case for replay. This is an OBVIOUS call that should not be missed. This blatant of a blown call should warrant disciplinary action from MLB.

Anonymous said...

"If a person is ejected during a repeat visit (second or subsequent) to argue the same play that he argued during the first visit, this ejection shall be considered Unsportsmanlike-NEC under Rule 6-2-b-5. This may be referred to as the DiMuro Rule." ... Where was the original argument to this play? I didn't see Hannahan protest this until he came out and saw the replay. Perhaps I'm missing something, but where's the first visit?

James said...

@8:21pm, there's also 6-5-c, "Quality of Correctness applies to the call made directly prior to ejection." I guess there is that post-inning/inning break exemption, but Hannahan waited too long. If he had come out in the bot 7/top 8 break, he might have been ok, but the middle-8 was 2 half-inning breaks. Need Bellino to get through this stuff lol

Curt Crowley said...

Dimuro's performance on this play was disgraceful. He lolly gags toward the play, blows the call by calling something he did not see, compounded his error by not asking to see the ball, then cops an attitude when Hannahan argues about it.

Not only did he cop an attitude, he starts sticking his finger in Hannahan's face, THEN ejects him. Real professional.

I think Dimuro should google "Dave Pallone Pete Rose" for a good example of why an umpire should keep his fingers in his pocket during arguments.

Jared said...

Curt is absolutely right and I've often disagreed with him before. DiMuro's attitude is pretty bad here, from how he goes about the first call to how he gestures in Hannahan's face before dumping him. This is strike two for that type of a delayed ejection call, and yes, part of it is bad luck, especially that first time around with Uribe and Mattingly, but this one is just bad.

BAPACop said...

@kickersrule and Anon 7:50: Did you even read the write-up? "+ 0 Irrecusable Call" DiMuro is not receiving points for the ejection. He is not losing them either, which seems the correct thing here. Yes, it was a bad call. But Hannahan should know that he can't come out and argue that call an inning and a half later. He acts so surprised when he gets thrown out, too, which I just find hysterical. Does he expect DiMuro to overturn a call he made an inning and a half ago? No, of course not. He just wants to take the opportunity to get in a few remarks. Does DiMuro deserve them in this case? Yes, yes he does. Should Hannahan be thrown out for making them? Yes, yes he should.

Mundane said...

Every year approx. 2/3 of the ML umpires get one of the 42 spots in the playoffs.
Mike DiMuro since he became a regular umpire in 2000 has managed a total of 2 divisional series.

Enough said.

Anonymous said...

@BAPACop,

He gets two points for an irrecusable ejection for being an MLB umpire.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 8:57: Yes, but every umpire receives those two points for every ejection regardless of the QOC.

Anonymous said...

Look what it say's wises phantom catch from multiple angels hahah halos ? no angles

Anonymous said...

Again change the umps 2nd half of the season just sayin.

ex. Tim Welke Ted Barrett Brian Onora Rob Drake

Gil Imber said...

@9:16 PM, must have been too busy watching Pujols and co. slug four HRs to beat the Orioles when I was writing this up.

Anonymous said...

Bad Call by good ump, oh is phil cuzzi smiling right now with the mauer call he made in the 09 playoffs. Didn't somone else blew a catch similer to this one in los angeles dodgers stadium idk was it todd tichnor? someone help me

Anonymous said...

Here is the simple solution: If you fall into the stands making a catch, it is no catch. You can't catch the ball in the dugout.

Who is to say he catches the ball, falls into the stands, drops it and picks it up and shows it to the umpire? How is he supposed to know he dropped it?

Anonymous said...

Chalk that one up to the NYPD getting in DiMuro's way and obstructing his view of the fan in the red shirt who is holding up the stinkin' ball! What a great shot of the play, all you need are two frames in the video to see what happened. #1 is the one you have and #2 is the one where DiMuro calls the out. Wow.

Turducken said...

@9:24,

You don't. See: Ron Kulpa

Anonymous said...

What happened to the requirement that a fielder has to demonstrate control and voluntary release to make a "catch" of a batted ball?

Anonymous said...

@ Mundane at 8:49pm. OH SNAP he got Eddings-ed!

Seriously though, the fix is in. Listen to me, baseball is all about the highlight reel plays, the catches out of nowhere. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that umps are told to err on the side of a 100% catch for this type of highlight reel play.

Anonymous said...

Yikes. Looks like the headline on the Yankee wrap is "Yanks getting all the bounces" with a huge picture of Dewayne Wise about to drop the foul ball in the stands. It's the headline story from this game and that just can't be good.

Anonymous said...

"He's got the ball and a little bit of a smile on his face and an escort from the stands." Yeah, he's got a smile on his face. HE's A FREAKIN CHEATER.

Wouldn't any gosh darn athlete, nay, any MAN with any integrity tell the ump, "Hey, I don't have it" rather than hold up a glove he KNOWS is empty? What a freaking piece of crap, only enabled by the incompetence shown by Mike DiMuro. I mean the guy in the red shirt is freakin' holding the thing up like it's the world series trophy. DIMURO OPEN YOUR EYES. Look at that picture with the ball highlighted in yellow. OBVIOUS STUFF GUYS. Tee ball and little league umps should be proud, knowing they were better than Mike DiMuro on Tuesday.

Anonymous said...

Well, looks like DiMuro won't be writing up an umps care blog entry for a while.

Jon Terry said...

I'm not disputing the ruling here in any way. However, I am going to play devil's advocate. Ready?

How do we know that the ball held up by the fan is the ball that was in play?

Anonymous said...

@Jon Terry, the fan in the red shirt's name is Vinnie Pellegrino and it looks as if he got the star treatment from the Yankees after the play. He said, "Dewayne was just coming into the seats, and it hit the seats, and then the ball hit something -- whether it hit him or the seats -- and I came up with it."

http://www.mlb.com/cutfour/article.jsp?content_id=33986968

Anonymous said...

Mike DiMuro is doing a terrible job of upholding the umpires' position that instant replay isn't needed. This call was just an embarrassment to umpiring profession. He simply didn't do his job. He needs to at least check to see if Wise ended up with the ball. MLB really ought to consider giving him a few days off to send a message to all of its umpires that this is a job you need to take seriously.

BAPACop said...

@Jon Terry: We don't. But at approximately 1:01 of the "Must C" video we get a camera angle where we can see almost straight into Wise's glove as he is helped up and from what I can see he does not appear to have a ball in his glove. So the guy in red may be holding up a foul ball he caught earlier, but Wise doesn't have any ball at all.

Anonymous said...

@BAPACop, +2 is a lot better than -2.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 11:45: Indeed it is. But UEFL rules state that an umpire receives two points for an ejection as an MLB umpire or three as a AAA callup. As far as I'm aware, that doesn't change any under circumstances, regardless of how bad you think the call is. Personally, I don't think DiMuro should gain any points nor should he lose any, but UEFL rules don't allow that; since the options are -2, +2, and +4, the current +2 is the closest we'll get. As I mentioned, the call was indeed blown quite horribly and so admittedly he shouldn't really gain points, but Hannahan had no business arguing that call an inning and a half later and there should be no points taken from DiMuro as his ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct was clearly warranted and DiMuro should not be penalized for it.

Looking back at my first comment I realize I should have phrased it better. When I said "DiMuro is not receiving points for the ejection. He is not losing them either, which seems the correct thing here." I should have instead wrote "DiMuro is not receiving EXTRA points for the ejection nor is he losing any, which seems the most fair thing here." My apologies for any misunderstandings.

Anonymous said...

@BAPACop: The reason Hannahan argued the call an inning and a half later instead of right away is because he did not have an chance to see the replay until the Indians batted next. Because he was the 3rd out in the inning he remained on the field for the bottom half of the 7th. He would not have been able to argue in that half because there was no way he could have seen the play clearly from home plate. So it was not until the top of the 8th inning that he would have been able to see the replay to see the blown call and therefore did not argue until the bottom of the 8th when he was back on the field with a chance to say something about the play.

I think there should be an amendment to the rule for situations such as these where a player is the 3rd out in an inning resulting in them remaining on the field unable to view a replay and comment to the umpire on the call until the next inning.

Anonymous said...

Call what you see and see what you call...I think that was umpire 101 before little league.

Sometimes a guy just makes a mistake; pure and simple. I'm really not sure why he complicates things by tossing the person he wronged originally. Two wrongs don't make a right...pre-school 101.

I'd love to know if MLB calls DiMuro and asks him to explain why he felt the need to back up a bad call with the temper of a two-year-old. Gotta take your lumps when you mess up that badly!

Adam said...

I don't fault Dimuro for dumping Hannahan here. Dimuro had not seen a replay yet so as far as he was concerned he still believed he had made the right call.

No need to provide special exemptions for these type plays. If the player has to go see a replay before he can argue then he really doesn't need to argue.

Anonymous said...

@Adam: The reason he would have to see a replay to argue is because he was at home plate when the play happened. Its not like a bang bang play at 1st base where the player is right there the ball was foul into the stands there was no way Hannahan could have seen it clearly from home plate. However an Umpire who is supposed to be on the play in position to see it and ask to see the ball to confirm the catch should have been able to see this. Its a rare situation but one in which the player would have no way of knowing without replay because he was so far away. In the Video you can see that the pitcher was not even sure that the catch was made and he was even closer and in better position than Hannahan was to make the play.

At any rate the Umpire blew the call in multiple ways. He had many chances to make the right call and did not:
A. He failed to run over to get into position electing to slowly jog instead.
B. He failed to notice the fan bend down pick up the ball and hold it in the air like a trophy.
C. He failed to ask Wise to see the ball to confirm he had it.
No matter how hard the play was to see in real time had the umpire noticed B or done his job in C the call would have been made correctly. So the fact Hannahan needed to see a replay before he was able to argue is pointless because even if the umpire had stayed at third base and not moved at all he could have still made the call by asking to see the ball. Hannahan likely trusted that the Umpire had followed the rule and been shown the ball and therefore had accepted the call without argument until he saw the replay and realized that Wise did not even have a ball in his glove. Not only that DiMuro has admitted to not asking to see the ball and stated that he threw Hannahan out for telling him to reference the tape.

Anonymous said...

Edit above it should be: closer and in better position than Hannahan was to see the play.

Boozie said...

@Adam, aren't you the same person who challenged the Randazzo ejection? You, my friend, have zero credence to talk about challenges.

Adam said...

@Boozie I did not challenge the Randazzo ejection, in fact I don't think I've made a challenge all year.

@Anonymous no argument from me that Dimuro could have done some things better and ultimately he blew the call. My point was that nobody argued the call until after they saw the replay and then still waited an inning and a half later to argue about it. I get that he was still on the field and all that but why didn't Manny Acta come argue or Steve Smith argue? I would think that somebody would have argued the call when it happened if they thought Dimuro got it wrong.

Adam said...

@Boozie, I just checked the Randazzo thread and see where a poster named Adam challenged. We are not the same. You'll notice that I am logged in with a google account so my name is in blue. Do not know who the other poster is but it was not me.

Anonymous said...

Wise is a classless, cheating rat piece of poop. Show some integrity and do what is right. A tip for everybody...don't play golf whith this jerk. "Wise, what did you take on that hole?". "Two!" really, on a par 5?

Anonymous said...

@anon 12:58 someone is an indians fan

Anonymous said...

I have no team. I can't stand RATS!

BAPACop said...

The next time I see a fielder walk up to an umpire and admit he didn't catch the ball and ask him to change his call will be the first time.

Anonymous said...

Dimuro is a joke. Daddy's name got him a job, but it couldn't get him any talent.

SJR said...

Hey, hey, be nice =( (lol)

Gil Imber said...

After review, the original Reason for Ejection of "Unsportsmanlike-NEC" has been affirmed in a 5-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Five Appeals Board members elected to Confirm the Original Ruling and one voted to Overturn it.

Per Curiam Opinion:
The Original Ruling in 078: Mike DiMuro (2) specified Unspotsmanlike-NEC and irrecusability under UEFL Rule 6-5-c: "Quality of Correctness applies to the call made directly prior to ejection."

The Board affirms this finding and additionally rules that the Rule 6-5-c-2 Exemption (Post-Inning Exemption) applies only to "an ejection which occurs during an inning break immediately following the half inning in which the play to be argued occurred." Because the play in question ended the top of the seventh inning, the Exemption was held in abeyance until the inning break that followed the bottom of the seventh inning. As the player had not been ejected by that time, Rule 6-5-c-2 was deemed inapplicable.

Concurring Opinion, RichMSN:
I believe the window closed. While this situation is the one that tests this concept, I personally think there must be a limit. If nobody was able to tell this wasn't a catch and argue when it happened -- and the ejection happened much later, then too bad.

The call was regrettable, but the ejection was proper. The player had no business bringing it up.

Concurring Opinion, yawetag:
As before, the rules currently state the ejection cannot go back to a previous-inning call. If we want to discuss allowing later-inning (or game) ejections to be judged on previous incidents, it needs to be done during the off-season and needs to be clearly defined on how to determine it. This conversation should be discussed in November, not June. See Ejection 075: Tony Randazzo (1).

Dissenting Opinion, tmac:
I am ruling to overturn QOC even though it is improper for a player to talk about a play that happened earlier in the game, yesterday, last year in a negative light, BUT it is also improper for an umpire to not ask for voluntary release... Umpires do not let players work on the honor system.. "oh you said you caught the ball"... good enough... WRONG....

I go by who messed this play up... The umpire did.... Get the call right we don't have this problem.... IMO it is clear what the player is talking about and he is doing so calmly.... DiMuro escalates the situation..... then the pointing thing.. yea not for me.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

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

Reason for Ejection has been affirmed, 5-1.

Anonymous said...

Just one question -- Did anyone on te crew see the fan raise hhe aall,, and did any other crew member point out to him that the ball was not caught?

Anonymous said...

That's "not their call."

Post a Comment