Saturday, July 14, 2012

Ejection 087: Dale Scott (3)

3B Umpire Dale Scott ejected Mets Manager Terry Collins for arguing a safe (reversed) call in the bottom of the 5th inning of the Mets-Braves game. With one out and one on, Braves batter Jason Heyward hit a 1-0 knuckleball from Mets pitcher R.A. Dickey on a pop fly to left field, where LF Jordany Valdespin attempted a sliding catch as the ball dropped toward the grass. Initially ruled a catch and double play, the umpires conferred and reversed the call to a single. Replays indicate the ball was trapped, but R1 Martin Prado was tagged while off his base, the call was incorrect.* The call is now correct.^ At the time of the ejection, the contest was tied, 3-3. The Braves ultimately won the contest, 8-7.

This is Dale Scott (5)'s third ejection of 2012.
Dale Scott now has 6 points in the UEFL (2 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 6).
Crew Chief Dale Scott now has 6 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (5 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 6).
*After review, this ruling has been deferred by the UEFL Appeals Board (3-3-1).
^After exhaustive review, Quality of Correctness has been reversed by the UEFL Appeals Board (4-3).
*Historical Appeals Board decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.*

UEFL Standings Update
Prop 2-1/Post-ASG 7-14-12 (2pts) Awarded to: Heyblue, RadioPearl, Turducken, TXWrangler, zcr57
Prop 2-6/Next-3B 7-14-12 (2pts) Awarded to: mbosschaart (7/25/12)

This is the 87th ejection of 2012.
This is the 45th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is Terry Collins' 2nd ejection of the 2012 regular season, he was last ejected April 11th (Larry Vanover; QOC = Correct).
This is Dale Scott's first ejection since June 17th (Doug Brocail; QOC = Correct).
This is the New York Mets' 5th ejection of 2012, first in the NL East.

Wrap: Mets at Braves 7/14/12
Video: Scott rules catch, Prado doubled off at first, tagged by Ike Davis; Umpires confer, reverse out to trap; Scott tosses irate Terry Collins

77 comments :

UmpsRule said...

YAY! Finally, an ejection! According to Retrosheet, Scott previously ejected Collins on April 28, 1999.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/S/Pscotd901.htm

Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or does Dale Scott's crew seem to be involved in a lot of controversy?

tmac said...

@ anon 3:29... IMO Bucknor just is not very good, and Scott is not CC worthy... dan Iossogna was routinely buried on this board in its old incarnations but IMO has improved greatly over the past few years..... Miller is solid if not one of the more underrated people in the bigs... His incident with Lawrie is an exception. Overall i just don't think this crew has meshed well or umpired well overall this season.

Anonymous said...

That kind of ruling surely seems to be subject to protest, but you hardly ever see games played under protest anymore. In the 60's it was very common. (Or at least I recall Gene Elston telling me telling me, "Fred Hutchinson and the Reds are playing this game under protest" at least once a series with the Reds.

Doug Harvey explained why he reversed the triple play in the Houston/Philly 1980 NLCS - that his incorrect safe call had put R2 in jeopardy. He was PU and it was his call, but the crew ended up calling it a catch by P - Vern Ruhle..

A similar ruling here could have said R1 was placed in jeopardy by an incorrect ruling of catch, causing him to retreat to first whereas he would have held at second except for the conflicting calls.

This is somewhat at variance with the instructions for a "caught stealing" on ball 4. The MLB rule book has a comment that the runner needs to be mindful that a ball four could make him safe EVEN THOUGH U2 called him out on a caught stealing. It says he can be re-tagged and be OUT if he comes off the bag to return to the dugout. If today's play is going to be consistently treated that way (the jeopardized runner is placed at the most reasonable base absent the conflicting calls), then it would be more consistent and reasonable to return the "caught stealing" runner to his base. Frankly, the U2 UMPIRE should also be aware of the count and he SHOULD NOT signal OUT if there is a possibility a ball four entitled the runner to the base. Kind of like having the defense "show the ball" to prevent the fiasco phantom catch we had earlier this year.

Anonymous said...

This crew is always in the middle of controversy, dale scott and dan iossogna see ya! i don't want to see these two together anymore, break this crew i agree they don't mesh. Send tony randazzo to this crew inexchange for Bucknor, and Eddings for iossogna

Cricket said...

Whomever posted this is wrong. I challenge.

The call was corrected by conference. The ejection occurred after the correction. Per OBR 9.02(c), the placement of runners is justified and Scott's crew got it right.

Anonymous said...

If this is true, i take back what i said then ^ Anon 4:02

hitit2me said...

I have to disagree with QoC of incorrect. Rule 9.02 (c) gives the umpires full discretion to rectify a situation in which they reverse a call. In this case, Heyward only began going back to first due to the erroneous catch call. Since it is up to the umpires to determine what in their opinion would have happened had the correct call been made and since the judgment call of "no catch" was the (obviously correct) call made in the end, shouldn't QoC be "correct"?

hitit2me said...

I of course meant Prado (R1) going back to first, not Heyward (B).

hitit2me said...

And of course Cricket was faster...stupid typing speed.

Anonymous said...

CB blew a call at first the half inning before too, this crew definitely is not the best

Anonymous said...

Plays like this one show how using more replay would would cause so many additional problems. This one was relatively simple, but trying to figure out what ``should'' happen in the aftermath of many other replay-related calls would be trouble and would take judgement to new heights.

Anonymous said...

The UEFL bylaws are pretty tight so I'm sure this is covered, but even if the call is technically proper, why should the ruling be correct if it was all caused by an incorrect call to begin with (the out call on the trap).

BUT.... The key to this ruling may hinge on something that will probably be known after we hear the post-game comments: The FOX guys on this game were awful, and they originally said that the runner retreated to back to first because one umpire gave the safe call (for a trap), all while another gave the out call. If two umpires are giving different calls on the same play, can the ejection fundamentally be ruled a correct call?

Again, that could have been Meyers and Karros making a mistake, because they called a bad game together on the broadcast.

Jeremy Dircks said...

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

Josh7377 said...

here's why dale scott completely fucked this up.....if prado goes with his initial incorrect call, then he was doubled up trying to get back to first. There was no delay by prado at all. He saw the out call, retreated to first and was thrown out. He was not put in any jeopardy as a result of the initial out call. ZERO. Therefore, the only thing to rectify is Heyward should be allowed to get first base. There is no basis for giving Prado second. He should have been out. Umpires can only rectify a situation like that if a runner was put in jeopardy, and Prado was never in jeopardy because he didn't alter his running even though he thought the call was wrong.
Terrible decision by Scott and it cost the Mets two runs.

Russ said...

Does anyone know who gave Dale Scott the input for him to overrule the call? In the video you can see both Iassogna and Miller talking in the huddle, but I would have to think Miller was the one who told Scott it was not a catch based on the angle he had on the play. He was in perfect position based on where the ball was hit to see the trap.

This is also the second time in three weeks Miller has helped changed an incorrect call to a correct one. Iassogna missed a runner's interference call and Miller helped overrule that call as well. Good for Bill to help his crew get these calls right, he got some heat for the Lawrie situation but he usually stays out of trouble and is consistently in the playoffs. People complain about this crew, but I think Miller is a step up from Meals who they had last season.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 5:17: The replay clearly shows only one call made on the field, the out call. The announcers continue to claim two different calls were made even after this replay is shown.

@Josh7377: I see this situation a bit differently. The out call did indeed put Prado in jeopardy. If the original call had been the correct one, Prado would not have left second base to go back to first, and would therefore not have been put in a situation in which he would be able to be tagged out.

Cricket said...

This is an easy UEFL decision; I do not understand how the original poster botched it. The umpires decided if the correct call had been initially made, Prado is at second (and in fact, he actually touched, and re-touched second on the play). Prado properly responded to the incorrect "out" call by retreating toward first base. In accordance with OBR 9.02(c), the post-consultation call is obviously correct.


UEFL Rule 6.02(b)(7) states: "Quality of Correctness for an ejection that occurs after umpire consultation, wherein the initial call was correct or incorrect, and after consultation, the initial call was changed to incorrect or correct, shall be adjudged as to whether the call after consultation is correct or incorrect."

Collins' ejection occurred AFTER the consultation. Therefore, Scott should be rewarded points for a CORRECT call.

Josh7377 said...

@bapa...
that's irrelevant though. As the baserunner you are responsible for obeying the umpire's call. Therefore, if the batter is called out on a catch/no-cath play, you as the runner have to return to first. He didn't.
If Prado made it back to first base safely, then I can understand that you would put him back at second. (even in a smaller scale, if he would have stayed at second base, I could understand too).
This is the same Dale Scott who put 3 San Diego runners at a disadvantage when he called a ball foul, then changed it to (correctly) fair. In reading that thread of Bud Black's ejection, Scott was admonished by an MLB executive for his actions. Guess now he was too scared to make the right call this time around. Prado should have been out, end of story.

Cricket said...

Further, the video description is completely erroneous. Scott ruled out, not "trap," and Davis touched first for the appeal out of Prado; the tag is irrelevant even if the preliminary call had been correct.

Also, as someone above pointed out, FOX's Myers and Karros make complete fools of themselves.


And @Josh7377: Your logic is absent. The runner is in jeopardy because of BAPACop's explanation. And regardless, OBR 9.02(c) says absolutely nothing about "in jeopardy." Umpires can rectify any situation, whether a runner is "in jeopardy" or not.

Anonymous said...

Josh, you are wrong on two accounts...

Prado had already reached second WHEN Scott called Heyward out. He has to retreat back to first because that was the call and was NOT reversed at that point.

Because he was running back, Prado DID slow up about 3/4 of the way back to first because he was questioning Scott's call before he was tagged by the 1B.

Not that I am defending Scott, but Prado should have been awarded second since he did touch the bag. If he had let up between 1B and 2B before heading back to 1B, then the question would be up for debate and in this situation, the force at 2B would have been called had Scott ruled a trap instead of a catch.

Anonymous said...

Lost in all of this discussion: The original call was pretty bad. As far as trap/catch calls go, this one was about as obvious as it will get.

That Bucknor call at first earlier in the game was also a not-even-close bad call.

Josh7377 said...

i guess i still don't agree. The call was out. Prado has a responsibility to return to first. He didn't. The fact that he slowed up because he was arguing is stupid. There was nothing on that play that should have confused him except that he saw something different. Get back to first base safely, then he can be placed on second base.

I still maintain Scott misinterpreted 9.02(c). Prado had no knowledge that anyone else could have overturned Scott's call. Therefore, he shouldn't benefit because Iassogna or Miller bailed Scott out of a bad call.

Imagine this scenario--nobody on 2 outs and 2 strikes. Check swing on a ball in the dirt that goes to the backstop. HP umpire calls ball 1 as the catcher chases the ball. Batter stays in the box. Catcher gets back to the plate and asks for an appeal. 1b umpire says he swung. Now the catcher tags the batter. Basically, all of you are saying that you should give the batter first base because the HP erred. You all know that would never happen, and you'd be admonishing the batter for not running.
This is the same situation. Prado didn't run and was out. Therefore he's f'n out.

BAPACop said...

@Josh7377: This situation is slightly different, though. In your scenario, the batter never acquired first base. Had Prado not made it to second base I can see him being out, because there would be a question of whether or not a throw to second would have created a force out. But Prado touched second before the (incorrect) call was even made, so in my mind you have to let him stay on second.

Josh7377 said...

yes but once you retreat, the force is reinstated.....which was again his obligation to do because he saw an out call. He was not confused from an umpire's action. He didn't make it back to first place safely.

I maintain the only way to award Prado second base is if he safely returned to first, thinking it was a catch. Because he didn't do that, you can't give him second because he touched it earlier in the play.

Cricket said...

@Josh...

Look, answer this question: If the correct call of "safe" or "trap" is initially made, where is Prado when the play is over?

The only reasonable conclusion is on second base.

BAPACop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BAPACop said...

@Josh7377: Prado looked pretty confused to me, to be honest. But that has nothing to do with anything.

When the umpires get into a conference, their job is to make the correct call. Here we have a situation where, due to an incorrect call, a runner is out. So the umps have two options:

1. Call Prado out. Since he should never have had to return to first, this is punishing Prado for Scott's mistake.
2. Place the runners where they would have been had the correct call been made. Since anyone (not named Terry Collins) can see how the play would have developed had the call been a trap in the first place, this punishes nobody.

Josh7377 said...

@cricket---yes i agree there, but then go back to my scenario at 7:01.

If the correct call of swing is made by HP umpire, the batter is on first. But because of his own action (or lack of action), he would be considered out after an appeal.
therefore, because of Prado's action and when he was tagged, he should be out.

BAPACop said...

@Josh7377: As I explained, in your scenario it's not clear whether he would beat the throw because he never made it to first nor even attempted to go there. It is 100% certain that Prado would have made it to second.

Dan said...

What a fiasco. Dale Scott blows the call, gets bailed out by his crew, and then tosses Collins, who had to get himself tossed at that point. I'm not a rules expert, so I'll let other more qualified people debate that. But a bad day for two members of this crew, when you include Bucknor's blown call at first base earlier in the game.

Anonymous said...

It should be correct. Prado saw it was a trap and only ran back to first when he realized the ump called it an out. Furthermore, Davis touched the bag first before touching Prado, making the tag null.

Brett said...

This is how I see it. The original call may have been correct but had Prado and Heyward not been trying to umpire as well as play, then Prado would have gotten back to first. If he gets back to first safely, then this would be the correct placement. Otherwise, Prado was putout on the appeal and tagged. He should be out, regardless whether it was overturned or not. Complete the play as called and let the umpires sort it out.

Anonymous said...

Why not release publicly each umpire's rating at the end of the season? Dale Scott is a wimp who is way over his head when it comes down to tough decision. I would like mlb to promote the most consitent,decisive and BEST as CC regardless of how many years they have. It is time for mlb to get rid of those who are in it for the money and just get the best umpires so we don't have have controversy almost every night.

Anonymous said...

You can't penalize the runner for being confused when the umpires flub the call. That said, I can't stand it when these calls are overturned, one ump at first one watching second and then the home plate umpire extremely far away. Who overturned this

Anonymous said...

Exact same play happened on the 16th in St.Louis and it was ruled correct. Runners at 1st and 2nd, pitcher catches the ball and throws to the bases for a triple play. Danley rules it a trap and calls everyone safe. Can't call that one correct and then call this one incorrect.

Brett said...

Where is the penalty to the runner? He might have been put out at 2nd if it was called "no catch" to begin with. He could have also gotten back to 1st safely. They are there to play the game not umpire. The umpire called catch and instead of Prado hustling back to 1st, he lollygags his way back and gets doubled off on the appeal and tagged. Why should he get rewarded for failing to finish the play out?

BAPACop said...

@Brett: Look at the video, specifically the wide angle replay at 1:38. When the ball is trapped, Prado is two steps from second. There is zero chance Prado is put out at second base.

BAPACop said...

Correcting myself: There is a chance, but it's microscopic, and would require Prado to do something like make an attempt to go to third.

Anonymous said...

Actually this is the third time in the last four series Miller has helped overturn a missed call. Tex @ White Sox, last week Carrapazza incorrectly ruled a catch in right field and Miller came over from firstbase, before Washington came out, to correctly rule Rios had dropped the ball. Miller is either in a great spot to see these calls or he has big balls to get these calls right.

Anonymous said...

Gibson called the runner out yet the ball hit the back stop then safe two runners scored, common gibson don't assume!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Guys, this is not a difficult play to interpret. Scott has a lousy angle from the third base side. The glove, being on the centerfold side, Scott was blocked out by the sliding fielder. Miller at second base has a great shot at the glove side. That's why he told Freddy Gonzales to not come out and argue. They flipped the play and by doing so, by the book rule, they are to place the runners where they would have reached had the correct call been made. Thus Prado was directed to second and Hayward to first.
As for the guy that wants to bring up the swinging strike three...... There is a directive in the Manuel for the wing umpires to immediately come up with a swinging strike three if they have the batter going and the ball is not caught. This is the big leagues boys and these guys nailed this call.

Cricket said...

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/terry-collins-and-mets-admit-umpires-made-the-right-call-1.3838841

"In fact, [Terry Collins] said during the argument, 'I know you got the play right, I'm just frustrated.'"

- Dale Scott

Anonymous said...

If Scott gets the call right the first time around, Collins stays in the game. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Scott screwed up... again... This guy's a $250,000+ liability to MLB. COME ON!

Anonymous said...

I do not think Scott is a bad umpire and I have to give him this, he is always calm when involved in an argument. If nothing else, a few umpires could learn how to hold their temper from him.

Penwhale said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Penwhale said...

@Josh7377:

9.02(c) specifically says that "No player, manager or coach shall be permitted to argue the exercise of the umpires’ discretion in resolving the play and any person so arguing shall be subject to ejection." In the comment for 9.02(c), you're provided that "A manager is permitted to ask the umpires for an explanation of the play and how the umpires have exercised their discretion to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that the umpires are reversing. Once the umpires explain the result of the play, however, no one is permitted to argue that the umpires should have exercised their discretion in a different manner."

I challenge the ejection rationale: this should be Unsportsmenlike Conduct-NEC and the QOC be deemd Irrecusable due to 9.02(c) requiring Collins to be tossed.

Anonymous said...

Seems like even the NY Mets manager feels the umpires got this call COMPLETELY correct (from newsday.com):

Collins agreed. "It was the right call," he said. Yes it was, and in accordance with Rule 9.02 ( c ), which states that umpires "have the authority to take all the steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that they are reversing."

Anonymous said...

You can't say they got the call COMPLETELY correct when the original ruling was an incorrect as you can get! You could see the grass between the ball and Valdepspin's glove!

Anonymous said...

If he gets iit right the first time, there's no ejection. Bad call, you go from two outs to none.

RichMSN said...

The correct call on the play is that the ball was trapped and, had that happened at the time, we'd have runners on first and second. That's exactly how it ended up.

The umpires are blamed when they don't work to "get it right." When they meet and "get it right" a manager gets frustrated and ejected and it's still their fault.

I see the reason for the ejection, but the result on the field was proper.

Anonymous said...

Bucknor just ran Dan Warthen, having an awful day behind the plate

Anonymous said...

Bucknor made a bad call giving Bourn time out when Santana was already in his warm-up, which the Mets were already upset about. Add in the close call which goes against the team, and someone was bound to get tossed.

Anonymous said...

CB is easily the worst ump in the league right now

Anonymous said...

There are bad days at the plate, and then there is the day he is having. But that's okay, he's good on the bases ... oh wait!

BAPACop said...

@Anon 12:05, 12:25: Either of you bother to look at his chart before saying he's having a bad day? I haven't checked it myself, so I'm not going to put forward an opinion on his performance.

Anonymous said...

Watching it on TV. He's been inconsistent, plus the time out call in the middle of the at-bat that caused Warthen's ejection was as much of a reason that he got run than anything that would show up on the chart.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 12:58: It's hard to tell off a TV broadcast whether a plate umpire is being inconsistent or not, since most announcers will only bother to check on the close pitches that didn't go their team's way and TV cameras are generally not positioned to give a perfect view of the strike zone.

As for the time out, a lot of plate umpires give late time outs, but I take it from the comments that this was later than most. I'd like to see a video of the time out if possible.

Jon Terry said...

I swear, take a few days off, and look what you miss.

Had I been able to read this in time, I would have challenged. The post-conference call is completely correct. Collins argued because every manager argues every call that is changed against their team. Remember, managers only want umpires to conference when it will help them

As for Dale Scott, nobody gets every call right. Nobody. That's why conferences exist, that's why 9.02(c) exists. To fix inevitable mistakes. So lose the whole 'if he got it right the first time' crap. That's probably what got Collins run.

RichMSN said...

9.02(c) and its application are quite persuasive to me. The crew got the call right in the end. I'm not sure it's going to be persuasive to enough people, though.

What I think is sad is that people in this thread are bashing Scott and his crew for doing what most people say umpires don't do enough of -- manning up, admitting the initial call was wrong, and reversing themselves and putting things the way they would've been had the call been made correctly in the first place.

Collins had no reason to get run. Sounds like he went out there KNOWING that the ball had hit the ground. So what's he arguing, then?

I'd love to see instant replay if only to watch people like Collins argue with a television monitor.

Anonymous said...

In most sports, the "inadvertant whistle" stops everything. I think the "inadvertant out" needs to have the same effect in many baseball situations.
R1 ran to second, touched second, all heck broke loose.
In every conceivable situation where the umps get this right from the beginning, you have runners on 1 & 2 after the play. Why wouldn't we just take the umps bad call out of the equation and put runners on 1 & 2, call it a bad call--it was, they are human, they make "errors", it's rectified, move on.

I'm a bit on the fence about the ejection. I think the ump deserves to hear about making a bad call. Not sure if TC was really over the top and needed to go here. I'd have to give him a little lee-way; but he was very animated.

RichMSN said...

9.02(c) is pretty clear. Scott gave Collins plenty of rope. Eventually he had to go.

Gil Imber said...

After review, the Original Ruling has been deferred in a 3-3-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected to Confirm the Original Ruling, three voted to Overturn it and one voted to Defer it.

Per Curiam Opinion:
This Appeal has strong arguments for both affirmation and reversal. On the one, follows the spirit set forth in Appeal 02, Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1), in which tmac opined, "A caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic ... puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play." In his majority opinion, tmac additionally wrote, "It's as bad as calling a guy out on a catch in the outfield getting guys to go back to their bases and switching to a no catch call." As such, past precent suggests a QOC of incorrect.

Alternately, Rule 6-2-b-7 states that QOC for an ejection that occurs after umpire consultation, "shall be adjudged as to whether the call after consultation is correct or incorrect." Though the runner was tagged while retreating to first base, independently of the first base bag being tagged, the Board recognizes the argument that had this play been correctly officiated prior to consultation, runners would have ended up exactly where they were placed after consultation.

Rule 9.02(c), therefore, is a convincing argument.

Plurality Opinion, RichMSN:
the end result was exactly what it would've been had Scott ruled correctly in the first place. To me, this was an incorrect call that became a correct call. And I'm really only interested in the end result. So I'm voting to overturn.

Plurality Opinion, yawetag:
In my opinion, the play itself should be reviewed; if the final call by the umpires is the correct call AND runners are placed on bases they would have probably achieved, the end result is the CORRECT call. Alternatively, if the final call is incorrect OR runners were placed incorrectly, the call should be INCORRECT. In this situation, I think we all would agree that had the ORIGINAL call been correct, there would have been R1 and R2; therefore, the umpires huddling, changing the call, and placing the runners on first and second is the correct call; if they had called R1 out or placed him at 3B, then I would rule it incorrect.

In other words, overturned calls that lead to an ejection require two questions: (1) Was the end call the correct call? and (2) Were runners placed on bases that, in our judgement, they would have achieved if the original call had been made correctly. In this situation, the answer to both is "yes." Therefore, I'm overturning the decision.

Dissenting Opinion, tmac:
I am ruling this play as incorrect as if the correct call was made a visit would not have occurred and the result would have been no ejection. The cause of the ejection albeit from the other team was an original incorrect call they necesitated a conference and a reversal. I understand I may be in the minority but i believe this to be incorrect based on the interpretion and precedence.

Therefore, the Board defers the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire
Upheld: None
Overturned: BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag
Deferred: Gil (Casting Vote)
Abstained: None

The Original Ruling has been deferred, 3-3-1.

Gil Imber said...

Appendix

Majority Opinion, Gil:
As for procedure, UEFL Rule 6-4-b grants this Board the power to defer, through which the initial variable is listed as inconclusive. By its very nature, a deadlock vote (3-3-1) is inconclusive and subjects this Appeal to Rule 7-1: "All unresolved classifications, which fall under the category of points-affecting variables, as in 6.b., shall be resolved and reverted to a probable classification, or the default if no probable classification can be made. Although unresolved/inconclusive classifications are subject to review and resolving and/or reversion at any time, such resolving and reversion must be made no later than the conclusion of the phase of the season, defined in Rule 2-1, during which the ejection occurred." Accordingly, Rule 2-1 specifies that phase iv—our current phase—concludes after all games have been played on August 31. If, during that time, any Appeals Board member reviews this play and changes their vote, the Appeal will be finalized as Affirmed or Overturned.

If, however, no vote is changed during that period, Rule 7-1-b specifies: "In the instance of an exhaustive disputed or inconclusive Quality of Correctness, the Quality of Correctness shall revert to reflect the call made on the field as correct."

Dissenting Opinion, Jeremy:
I am subscribing to the limited precedent that the Appeals Board established in Appeal 02, Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1). Although I disagreed initially with the ruling in that case, I will give deference to what the Appeals Board has decided. When an umpire makes an incorrect call on a play that isn't easily correctable, or a correction has ramifications, such as Dale Scott (1) or here on Dale Scott (3), the umpire should not be rewarded for his incorrect mechanics and original determination and call. That is exactly what tmac said in his opinion then. The incorrect call and mechanic put the offended team (team of the ejected person) at a disadvantage. R1 Prado was tagged off the bag, independently of having first base tagged, by F3 Ike Davis. At that moment, R1 Prado is out. Scott's incorrect mechanics and original ruling created cause for that. Dale Scott should not be rewarded for a correct call by our precedent. However, I believe the mechanics of one umpire of the crew work hand in hand with cremates. You live and die as a crew. You can make an incorrect call because your crewmate made an incorrect mechanic or call. So, for these reasons I believe as to the classification of the calling umpire be changed from Dale Scott to CB Bucknor, as the issue in question here to me is the tag on R1 Prado. R1 Prado was tagged off base (whether there was a catch or no catch) and that is an out. No exceptions. U1 CB Bucknor made the ruling of an out call on the tag on Prado. This was not Scott's call to make, this is Bucknor's call and it was the wrong call (even though it was due to Scott's faulty mechanics). The original QOC of incorrect should be confirmed, but the classification on Scott changed to secondary.

Therefore, the Board defers the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire
Upheld: None
Overturned: BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag
Deferred: Gil (Casting Vote)
Abstained: None

The Original Ruling has been deferred, 3-3-1.

Anonymous said...

This is the first time all season I have disagreed with the appeals board but I strongly disagree here. How can you say Prado should have been out? That makes absolutely no sense. He was already on second when Scott called the catch so he clearly would have gotten there if the correct call was made. The crew gotogether and changed Scott's incorrect call to correct and placed Prado back at second where he ORIGINALLY WAS. I really don't know what the tag out of Prado has to do with anything. He was only retreating to first because of Scott's incorrect call. The end result of this play was absolutely correct. Terry Collins even admitted so in the post game interview. If a Manager admits the Umpires were right in the postgame that should really count for something. There has got to be a better way to break ties than have the original poster break it. Gil and Jeremy are just going to agree with each other no matter what so the correctness is already decided during a tie based on which commisioner voted which way.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight, the board deferred this so if no one changes their vote by August 31, QOC changes from incorrect to correct?

tmac said...

@ anon:

I think many of you are missing the point... I am not arguing that Prado would have been out... we have established precednet (rules for UEFL are a little different) that an incorrect call leading to an ejection should be determined as incorrect. on a professional level this is very in depth and complicated.... I raised the point in the discussions that let's say Miller had the EJ then the call could have been ruled correct. Remember the league (UEFL) and the rules are constantly evolving and not always in sync with MLB rules and this is one of the few times that is the case. See the ejection of Hannrahan earlier this year also.

I would really also like to give Kudos to RichMSN who for every ejection really stimulates the mind with his thought provoking ideas and discussion. Some of you don't know many of us were nominated for this position and it often takes up a lot of time and this one certainly did!!!

Cricket said...

Precedent can always be overruled...and this decision defies logic and UEFL Rules.

I decidedly disagree.

Boozie said...

Been saying this for weeks now, time to vote out AlbertaUmpire and BillMueller. If we could vote out the commissioners, I would. Only ones worth keeping are tmac and RichMSN.

This one's brutal, folks.

Anonymous said...

Board should be:
Jeremy
Gil
TMac
UmpsRule
RichMSN
Turducken
KickersRule

Anonymous said...

In this type of situation, I don't think it is fair to take away points from the umpire since the ultimate call was correct, but I also don't think it is fair to reward the umpire in the standings since the original incorrect call created the entire situation.

Perhaps for the rules summit, a new QoC could be addressed where in this type of situation, there is no change in the standings whatsoever.

Penwhale said...

Gil, can the Reason of Ejection be challenged? (I'm not sure my challenge on that was looked at.)

My reasoning was the fact that 9.02(c) requires the Umpire to eject, regardless of whether the original call was correct/incorrect.

Gil Imber said...

Yes, Reason for Ejection is what we call a "pseudo-points altering variable" (Rule 6-2-g), meaning that it both is subject to challenge and may be constantly subject to review by the Commissioners throughout the season. The Board did consider that argument, but unanimously decided to award QOC of correct/incorrect.

Gil Imber said...

After exhaustive review, the Original Ruling has been reversed in a 4-3-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. In the Board's exhaustive decision, four members elected to Overturn and three voted to Confirm the original Quality of Correctness.

Specifically, the following Board member resolved his vote of "Defer" during the exhaustive review process:

Gil:
After much consideration, I have elected to resolve my casting vote of "Defer" to a classification of "Overturn." The reasons for this are two-fold.

First, the mission of the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League is to "objectively track and analyze umpire ejections and their corresponding calls, with great regard for the rules and spirit of the game." Upon review, it is quite apparent—as it was when this play was initially challenged—that after conferring, the umpires ultimately made the correct call. Pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-7, Quality of Correctness for post-consultation ejections "shall be adjudged as to whether the call after consultation is correct or incorrect." This fact has never been in doubt. In this regard, QOC shall be "correct."

Second, Appeal 02, Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1) established precedent that, "a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic ... puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play." For the sake of this tenet, it is proper to associate the ejected manager with having been put in jeopardy or caused to have been ejected due to a previously improper call.

However, Dale Scott (1) specifically made reference to an incorrect mechanic as opposed to an incorrect call. Furthermore, the incorrect mechanic in Dale Scott (1) was a "time" mechanic, designed to create a dead ball situation.

In the present (Dale Scott (3)), it is apparent that Scott did not employ incorrect mechanics, as he properly gestured "out" when he believed the fly ball had been legally caught.

Though his initial call was incorrect, Rule 6-2-b-7 clearly mitigates the crew conference and clearly demands that QOC for a post-consultation ejection be taken from the post-consultation call, rather than the initial call.

Furthermore, I find that the precedent set forth in Dale Scott (1) relates to mechanics and not calls and thus does not apply to Dale Scott (3); consequently, QOC must be "correct" under Rule 6-2-b-7, which requires a vote of "Overturn."

I therefore resolve my vote of "Defer" and alter the record to read, "Overturn."

Therefore, the Board reverses the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire
Upheld: None
Overturned: BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag, Gil (Casting Vote)
Deferred: None
Abstained: None

The Original Ruling has been deferred, 4-3-0.

Anonymous said...

A sound decision, Mr. Imber!

Cricket said...

Very glad the Board fixed this egregious error.

Post a Comment