Monday, July 23, 2012

Ejection 096: Jordan Baker (1)

1B Umpire Jordan Baker ejected Giants shortstop Brandon Crawford for Unsportsmanlike Conduct-NEC in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Padres-Giants game. With two out and one on, Giants batter Brandon Crawford grounded out to Padres first baseman Yonder Alonso. Replays indicate Alonso stepped on first base with the possession of the ball well prior to Crawford touching the base; however this call was not in question. In the bottom of the 6th inning, Crawford appeared to have hit a double to right center field; however, on appeal, Baker ruled that Crawford failed to touch first base, thus calling Crawford out. Crawford and Giants Manager Bruce Bochy argued the call at the time, but neither were ejected. Replays are inconclusive as to whether Crawford touched first base, but since the argument that caused the ejection was beyond the half inning immediately after the call in question and a repeat visit, the reason for ejection is Unsportsmanlike Conduct-NEC, the call was irrecusable. At the time of the ejection, the Giants were leading, 7-1. The Giants ultimately won the contest, 7-1.

This is Jordan Baker (71)'s first ejection of 2012.
Jordan Baker now has 3 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 3 AAA + 0 Irrecusable Call = 3).
Crew Chief Dana DeMuth now has 4 points in the UEFL's Crew division (3 Previous + 1 Irrecusable Call = 4).

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 96th ejection of 2012.
This is the 38th player ejection of 2012.
This is Brandon Crawford's first career ejection.
This is Jordan Baker's first career ejection.
This is the San Francisco Giants' 3rd ejection of 2012.

Wrap: Padres at Giants 7/23/12
Video: Up 7-1, Crawford mouths off to Baker two innings after being called out on appeal from Condensed Game; Crawford's double appealed (8:53 to 9:37), for ejection see embedded graphic
Related: Crawford's first inning line drive is reversed from a catch to an RBI single

54 comments :

Anonymous said...

Lol nice

Anonymous said...

Not sure that the original play was inconclusive. Looked like a horrible call to me by Baker.

Back to AAA.

tmac said...

The double that was taken away by Baker was a REALLY bad call as he clearly hit the inside corner of the bad as witnessed by the SF feed from the CF cam angle.... The ejection on the other hand seems to be sound.... Not a big fan of calling up an umpire in his 1st AAA season... but there might be more to the story ;)

Anonymous said...

In the interviews Crawford said that he asked if he had touched it that time. A smart-alec comment, but not worth being tossed. This ump was just embarrassed that he screwed up and didn't want to take any heat for it.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. Bringing up a play from a few innings before is automatic. See ya.

Anonymous said...

Baker got the call wrong as shown by replays. It was NOT inconclusive so please correct your post with the facts. Also, I think it was unprofessional for Baker to throw out a player for making a sarcastic comment especially when the umpire was the one in the wrong. Many players and managers have yelled and cursed directly in the face of umpires without getting tossed. Seems like Baker wanted to make his mistake of a bad call go away by tossing Crawford.

Arik said...

It amazes me the number of people on an umpire ejection forum that do not understand umpiring! Crawford knew what he was doing when he popped off. Thus the irrecusable ruling. I also agree with the inconclusive ruling on the original play. Even the SF announcers gave Baker the benefit of the doubt and got on Crawford for "not making it obvious".

Tmac, you and I usually agree on stuff but the CF cam is not a good way to figure out a touch on the home plate/first base dugout side of the bag.

By the way... replays (including your CF camera) show Baker right on top of the bag looking right at Crawford's foot.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 12:17: I seriously doubt Baker had seen a replay at any point between that call and the ejection. As far as he is aware, he got the call right. Thus he is not "embarrassed that he screwed up" since he has no way of knowing that he did.

@Anon 12:35: Most players and managers don't yell and curse directly in the face of umpires an inning or so later. It was likely a combination of the comment and the fact that the play in question had happened quite a while earlier.

BAPACop said...

Regarding my previous post, I have not seen a replay yet and should have said "IF he did", not "THAT he did".

Anonymous said...

Baker was in AAA last season!

BAPACop said...

@Anon 1:39: Crawford was in AAA last season!

This game is fun. Your turn. Who else was in AAA last season?

James said...

Crawford baited him plan and simple. Instead of taking the bait, Baker just tossed him right then and there. I umpired a game once where a second baseman missed a play at second, as in flat out dropped the ball on a force play. Easy safe call. He went ballistic, but hey, it was his error, he said his peace and that was that.

Two plays later, we had an inning ending force out at second base. 2B catches the ball, takes off his glove and gestures toward me, saying, "Did I catch it NOW? With you, I'm never sure."

Ejected.

Jon Terry said...

I watched these replays on MLB Tonight. Even Mitch williams found these replays inconclusive. His comment was, "Don't make it so close and you won't have a problem."

And good ejection.

Brett said...

anyone have a link to the other views of the touch at first. would have to see it before I can say anything about it being a missed call. You get dumped immediately if you bring up an earlier call. Pretty clear cut ejection here.

RichMSN said...

Regarding two of the posts:

"In the interviews Crawford said that he asked if he had touched it that time. A smart-alec comment, but not worth being tossed. This ump was just embarrassed that he screwed up and didn't want to take any heat for it."

"Baker got the call wrong as shown by replays. It was NOT inconclusive so please correct your post with the facts. Also, I think it was unprofessional for Baker to throw out a player for making a sarcastic comment especially when the umpire was the one in the wrong. Many players and managers have yelled and cursed directly in the face of umpires without getting tossed. Seems like Baker wanted to make his mistake of a bad call go away by tossing Crawford."

Here's a dollar. Go buy yourself a clue about how the game is umpired.

Russ said...

Notice how Brandon Crawford didn't really complain after being ejected, I think he knew it was coming. I watch quite a bit of Triple A Baseball and Baker is a pretty good Umpire but has a really short fuse. He does not tolerate comments like that which is why a majority of his ejections are Players and not Coaches because Coaches are less likely to say smart ass stuff like "Did I touch it this time."

Anonymous said...

Crawford hit a line drive to the ally that off the bat was at least a double and might have been a triple so he rounded on the inside of the bag as ALL baseball players are taught. NO ONE goes over the top of the bag so NO it never is supposed to be "obvious." The rule requires contact which may be a mere brush of the side of the bag with the foot as it often is. Unless it is ENTIRELY obvious that a player completely missed the bag that call should never be made. If it is close enough that video later shows it to even be "inconclusive" it is simply a bad call. The umpire needs to actually see REAL "separation" between the base runner's foot and the bag before making that call. An experienced umpire in the MLB usually won't give that call unless it is really obvious... this guy will learn. As for the sarcasm... good move by the umpire, you eject Crawford. Bad calls, like bad hops, are part of the game... players need to pick up their glove and move on to the next play.

Anonymous said...

Haven't seen the video yet but something must have been obvious to the defense for them to appeal it. I don't think they went fishing for this one.

UmpsRule said...

Hopefully we'll get a look at the video at some point to see this, but I would imagine that most umpires would eject a player for bringing up a prior call in such a manner. In my opinion, it is a good thing to have newer umpires with a quick trigger because I believe the attitude of the players and managers really needs to be taken down a notch or two.

kickersrule said...

Richmsn

I wish I could find an umpire partner that was as good and knew as much stuff as you. Im glad you are on the apeals board.

Anonymous said...

"I watched these replays on MLB Tonight. Even Mitch williams found these replays inconclusive. His comment was, 'Don't make it so close and you won't have a problem.'"

Oh right, because Mitch Williams isn't a biased idiot who consistently makes comments against the Giants. No one makes it "obvious." On a potential triple bagger, you're supposed to hit the inside of the corner to get maximum speed rounding the bases.

Anonymous said...

One of the replays (from 3rd base dugout cam)showed Crawford clearly hitting the inside of the bag; in the shot you could see the umpire looking out to centerfield. Absolutely unconscionable call by the ump -- he wasn't even looking. When do we get to eject the umps for incompetence?

Anonymous said...

What game? Know your facts if your going to blast someone. Baker is not in his first season in AAA as mentioned!

Anonymous said...

a normal play turned bizarre by a crappy ump.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 9:19: Huh? I'm confused. You said Baker was in AAA last season. I said Crawford was in AAA last season. Now you're saying "Baker is not in his first season in AAA as mentioned". The words "first season" were not included in your initial post, so I'm not sure to what you are referring here.

And I don't recall blasting anyone. I thought we were playing a game where we list all the people who were in AAA last year. I guess I was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Crawfore shouldn't have been a wise guy to the ump his next time he was at first base. So yeah I guess his wise guy crack got him tossed. But the umpire should not have called him out at first because there was no absolute space between the player's foot and the base. Replays later showed that he did infact touch the inside of the bag and that there was no separation. But of course Mitch Williams would say it was inconclusive. He called the Giants-Phillies game the other day and was so biased against the Giants (was full of excitement over Phillies plays but sounded uninterested and bored calling Giants' home run). Doesn't an umpire have to be completely positive of something before overturning a ruling?

BAPACop said...

@Anon 10:00: I don't believe an appeal play counts as overturning anything; since no umpire has made a call on it yet there's nothing to overturn.

Double Down for Donuts said...

Looks to me like it is close. This is the second bad appeal I have seen this year (not as bad as Meals' against the Dodgers, though). Maybe he saw something we cannot see via camera, but man, it looks like he touches that inside part of the base...But since I am disagreeing, I suppose Arik will lump me into his "don't know about umpiring" category! Woe is me.

Arik said...

DDFD, not at all. Your argument is coherent and has some thought. What got me riled up was the knuckleheads that want to automatically come out and say he got it completely wrong and "shouldn't eject" because of it. Ive given players/coaches/managers longer leashes if I know I missed something. But it has to be at the same time of the play. If they want to be a smart asa two innings later then they get the gate... and they know it. (See the Giants 1BC stop and hang his head when he heats Crawford mouth off in the little clip above.)

I would be willing to venture I would be backed up on my statements, even by more experienced umpires than I am (ex. RICHMSN)

Anonymous said...

Giants were on the good end of the challenge-a-call stick earlier in the game. Crawford even. I'll take an early game inning continuing RBI call for a late game oddity any day. Odd "make up" call (the out, not the ejection) for a non-mistake, but oh well. The smart-assery and ejection both seemed warranted and predictable.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Double Down for Donuts said...

"DDFD, not at all. Your argument is coherent and has some thought. What got me riled up was the knuckleheads that want to automatically come out and say he got it completely wrong and "shouldn't eject" because of it. Ive given players/coaches/managers longer leashes if I know I missed something. But it has to be at the same time of the play. If they want to be a smart asa two innings later then they get the gate... and they know it. (See the Giants 1BC stop and hang his head when he heats Crawford mouth off in the little clip above.)"

LOL, sorry, I was being facetious (does not translate well). =) And I agree with your points, actually!

"I would be willing to venture I would be backed up on my statements, even by more experienced umpires than I am (ex. RICHMSN) "

This I don't agree with. I think as long as one knows the rules and has a handle on the game, it should not matter. Granted, umpiring experience goes a long way in understanding how to react or handle yourself in situations (same can be said for soccer, which I also officiate), but I imagine there are coaches who know just as much as many umpires. And for every high-caliber umpire who is competent there are 10 Angel Hernandez's. =) I've only been umpiring for 4 years now, but I would like to think I have a good handle on the game. Of course, there is a myriad of folks better than me, and I will always readily admit that. I don't focus on one thing and become an expert. I like to focus on a cornucopia of things and simply be good at what I do (officiating any sport, playing sports, playing instruments, mental masturbation, etc.). =)

RichMSN said...

I've seen 3 replays now and all I can say after seeing them is that it's not conclusive either way. And the one view I haven't been given is Baker's.

Tough call to make -- I'd expect that he saw something in order to make it.

Anonymous said...

2 different matters... the ejection was right. The earlier call I agree with an earlier comment... that's not a "bang-bang" play at first. There should be no such thing as a "close call" on that kind of play. This is about proper umping. It must be clear that the batter was not near the bag, not that you think he might have missed it by a grain of sand. And before someone comments, watch the video (if you can find it/MLB works hard to protect the bad umping from public exposure by keeping the video off the web)... can't tell from a lot of angles, but from the dugout it is clear he caught the bag. Same view does seem to show the umpire at first not actually looking at the moment of contact.... but I am told some of them have eyes in the back of their head.

Zac said...

I see the idiots are still invading the board with regularity.

1. For those of you claiming that Baker wasn't looking at the touch, look at the center field camera at the 9:34 mark on that video. He is looking directly at it.

2. At worst, this is inconclusive. I think after looking at the CF camera that he got it right. The runner's foot lands on the right center field side of first base. A foot that touches the base doesn't kick up nearly that much dirt either.

3. Crawford was going to go once he popped off two innings later. That is automatic, and if you don't know that, you don't have a clue about umpiring and how things work.

@DoubleDownForDonuts:
There are some coaches who know the rules well, and a lot of them who think they do but don't. I would bet that even the rule-wise ones don't know how to apply most of them like a trained, competent umpire though.

Anonymous said...

Not inconclusive, clearly touched the base and most importantly no way an ump makes call like that unless he clearly missed the bag. Umpire can not guess, it was a brutal "look at me " call by a rookie ump. Go back to the minors

Anonymous said...

Just as an aside, THIS right here is the perfect example of why the UEFL system works.

Rules summitt determined this kind of an after-the-fact ejection is irrecusable and guess what? That has saved all sorts of heartache. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's irrecusable. The system works.

Anonymous said...

I'm getting a bit tired of some of the ignorant posts in here:

For example, First ANON 7:09 ---- "NO ONE goes over the top of the bag so NO it never is supposed to be "obvious." "

No, a good base runner pivots on his toe on the inside corner of the bag. He sure in the hell doesn't hit it with his heel...

I swear some people in here either have never umpired, or played, or both. Hasta la vista, baby.

Anonymous said...

What is up with these ejections after the fact- Escobar and Yost in KC on Sunday and Crawford yesterday- appears to be a bad call but Crawford did bait the young AAA fill-in Baker

Adam said...

As for Baker congrats on first big league ejection as our friend "The Hawk" would say "You can put him on the boarrrrrrd! YES!!

Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tmac said...

To make it clear Baker is in his 1st full AAA season he started last year in the Southern League. He worked 5 seasons in AA.....

He was called up to PCL last season and worked some games but DID NOT start there.

People who didn't like this ejection probably also never deal with the dugouts when they are burning down. It's different styles and as much as i disagree with them it is what it is. Some umpires just want to be liked while others want to be respected.... If you just want to be liked you don't take care of Biz, make the big call punch out the guy on the close 3-2 pitch.

If you want to be respected you do your job to the best of your ability deal with people well and take care of biz when it need to be done!!

I don't know much about Baker but i do know he's tall!!

Curt Crowley said...

And immediately after the Jordan Baker Show, the fans were treated to a complimentary baseball game.

What is up with these AAA umpires who have been in the league 12.5 minutes thinking they have to show out and exert their authority over such nonsense? It is clear they are trying to send a message that just because they are new doesn't mean they are going to take any bunk. That's not their job. They are umpires, not messenger boys on an ego trip.

There's a whole class of these twerps in the MLB now. Put Scott Barry (making a fool of himself with Howard), and DJ Reyburn... well just being DJ Reyburn in that group.

These children have accomplished what I once thought impossible--they make Bob Davidson look like a nice guy. At least Bob will take a little butt-chewing before he tosses someone.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if he touched the base or not. However, I can say from experience that camera angles can be deceiving. I worked a tv game in the Southern League. Ball hit to the first baseman, pitcher covering. The pitcher missed the base by a couple inches, definite space between his foot and the bag. No argument from the pitcher. That night, after I wrote my ejection report for the manager, I watched the replay. If I had only seen it on tv, I would have thought it was the wrong call, definitely. From multiple angles. The cameras can't see an inch or two. Also, watch the first baseman. He has his eyes on the batter's turn also. He saw the same thing the umpire did.
Curt, why the name calling? Can't you just say, I think they don't handle themselves well? And you have no idea what was said in any of these conversations. Relax, state your opinion, but lay off the name calling. It makes you look like a jealous, wannabe.

Russ said...

Yes Scott Barry was not very professional during his Ryan Howard encounter, but he has really mellowed since then. He only has 1 ejection in the last 2 seasons and that was for a Pitcher intentionally throwing at a Batter. I would not lump Barry in with the group of Umpires who want to make it all about themselves. My personal guess is Barry was talked to by his superior about how to better handle situations because he certainly handles them fine now.

Curt Crowley said...

Russ, I suspect you are right, and that I am too harsh with my criticism of Barry. That was just one of the worst (overt) displays I've seen from a professional official in any sport, especially the "I'll kick your ---" look and body language he gave to a man who could reverse curl more than Barry weighs. Just bizarre.

You are correct about Barry's record since then, though. Hell I might even cut him a little slack from now on.

Zac said...

Curt Crowley: Simple fanboy or RAT coach? Or both?

UmpsRule said...

I'm not sure I understand the criticism of Baker here. Bringing up a call from earlier in the game is grounds for an ejection. As for the Scott Barry/Ryan Howard situation, it was instigated by Ryan Howard's reaction to an earlier check swing ruling.

Curt Crowley said...

Hello Apologist Zac. Nice to see you again, my dim friend.

I am disheartened that your reading comprehension level has not increased since we last met. My last comment stated agreed that Barry's record had been good and admitted that maybe I was being a bit too hard on him. Do you disagree with that, or do you just have reading comprehension problems?

Why don't you actually discuss the issues at hand (see comments by Russ and UmpsRule as examples to follow), instead of doing your little driveby troll routine? I don't mind the insults, but how about a little factual analysis sprinkled in with it? Are you intellectually capable of that? Or are you just the poorly educated abysmally paid thin-skinned "professional" umpire that has delusions of showing his butt to a real major league player some day?

Zac said...

Rat Crowley:

I was talking about your comment at 10:48 p.m. I guess your rat memory only goes back so far so you forgot about that one.

Jordan Baker ejected Crawford because Crawford brought up an earlier play. There was no "Baker Show" as you claimed. You were easy to peg early on because of your tired use of the "These guys aren't part of the show" routine. It has been in the broadcaster/fan lingo for years.

How is that for factual?

Curt Crowley said...

Almost missed your follow-up there non-umpire Little League Zac. You must be a little slow on the uptake. When you are vague and do not specify the target of your drive-by, I simply don't know what you are talking about.

Your poor writing skills are not my problem. Besides, I'm not debating this issue with a poser. The grown-ups were talking now run along.

I surely hope you put more time into your lesson plans than your posts.

Zac said...

Rat Crowley, deflecting and changing the subject again. Par for the course.

You still haven't told us about this "Jordan Baker Show". When did it happen? I didn't see it.

Anonymous said...

Jordan Baker in MLB, politics as usual...

Gil Imber said...

Pussy ump hope he gets killed in a car crash. Crawford works more harder than that fatass lifeless ump

Post a Comment