Monday, August 6, 2012

Ejection 109: Mike Everitt (2)

3B Umpire Mike Everitt ejected Rockies Manager Jim Tracy for arguing a reversed call (safe) by 1B Umpire Mike Estabrook in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Rockies-Dodgers game. With one on and two out, Dodgers batter Shane Victorino hit a 3-2 slider from Rockies pitcher Adam Ottavino on a sinking line drive to shallow center field, outfielder Dexter Fowler sliding in an attempt to catch the ball. Initially ruled an out, Dodgers Manager Don Mattingly argued, producing an umpire conference and a reversal to a trap. Replays indicate the ball skipped into Fowler's glove off of the grass, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Rockies were leading, 2-0. The Rockies ultimately won the contest, 2-0.

This is Mike Everitt (57)'s second ejection of 2012.
Mike Everitt now has 1 point in the UEFL (-2 Previous + 2 MLB + 1 Correct Call [Crewmate] = 1).
Catch or trap?
Crew Chief Mike Everitt now has 1 point in the UEFL (0 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 1).
*After review, QOC has been affirmed by the UEFL Appeals Board (5-0-1).

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 109th ejection of 2012.
This is the 55th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is the Rockies' 2nd ejection of 2012, 3rd in the NL West (LAD 8; SD & SF 3; COL 2).
This is Jim Tracy's first ejection since June 10 (Greg Gibson; QOC = Incorrect).
This is Mike Everitt's first ejection since July 21 (Angel Pagan; QOC = Incorrect).

Wrap: Rockies at Dodgers, 8/6/12
Video: Legendary Dodgers broadcaster Vin Scully narrates the call, reversal and interprets Tracy's ejection
Video: Longer clip of play, with Vin Scully behind the microphone (Los Angeles' Feed)
Video: Longer clip of above sequence, without Hall of Famer Scully's crafty narration (Colorado's Feed)

49 comments :

Anonymous said...

Challenge -- I don't see the ball hit grass. I see the awkward bounce, but I don't see it hit the grass.

Mike said...

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23686609&c_id=mlb


I think this one might be inconclusive..

Eric said...

On another note, Vin Scully in absolutely awesome interpreting Tracy on this.

Anonymous said...

I was sitting maybe 25 yds from the catch. Looked like a cut and dry catch from my angle.

Mike said...

It appears around 5:15 may offer us our best look at it..

Anonymous said...

25 yards from the catch? In the center of center field? So you were on the field? And if you were on the field, what were you doing sitting? The closest you could have been would have been in the outfield seats BEHIND the play with absolutely no view of anything whatsoever. I call bullshit, Anonymous 10:28 PM

Anonymous said...

25 yards from the catch? In the center of center field? So you were on the field? And if you were on the field, what were you doing sitting? The closest you could have been would have been in the outfield seats BEHIND the play with absolutely no view of anything whatsoever. I call BS, Anonymous 10:28 PM

(just in case the other one was pulled for profanity...sorry)

Anonymous said...

Deadspin has it up right now. Great video with Vin Scully's PG translation of Jim Tracy's tirade. The ball clearly bounces on the replay. Still sucks to get it wrong the first time...Tracy was well within his right to get run right there. He's had so many bone headed ejections it's about to had one that was actually merited.

Anonymous said...

2:47 and 5:15. As clear as can be. No catch.

Anonymous said...

2:45 and 5:15, I mean.

Russ said...

Both of Tracy's ejections this year actually seem well worth it, the other of course being the Greg Gibson no-catch call vs Angels. But you are right 11:03, many of Tracy's ejections are stupid. The Mark Carlson and Mark Wegner ones come to mind right away. But I don't think anybody will top Don Mattingly from this year and Mike Quade from last year as far as stupid ejections. Out of Mattingly's 5 ejections this year, only 1 of them I think was necessary. (Jerry Meals)

Russ said...

Who do you think had the best angle to overrule Estabrook here? All four Umpires seemed to do a lot of the talking during the huddle.

Anonymous said...

...and 5:05, and 5:08.

Bob Loblaw said...

Clueless broadcasters.

Don't they know that all four umpires "Watch the ball, glance at the runner?"

Anonymous said...

I think Everitt himself had a pretty good case to overturn it and Schrieber looked like he may have glanced up too. Given that Laz Diaz went with crew chief Everitt (wow that just looks weird) to explain the call to Tracy, he might have had some input. Then again, Tracy was directing his venom at Everitt which goes back to my original suspicion, Everitt got the call right, which is why he is the crew chief even though Paulie has been in the league longer and Laz has been in for the same amount of time.

Gil Imber said...

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

Anonymous said...

@other anyom 1103

I was 314 row b.

As far as the replay goes, is it possible it bounced right off the edge of his glove? It still can and should be challenged.

Anonymous said...

Scully's translation is awesome. What a close play. Impossible absolutely.

Anonymous said...

I think the fact that Scully recognized it wasn't Schrieber's call because of Ellis as R1 says it all

Josh7377 said...

i think it's very close, but on the rockies video feed, when they return from the dugout, you can see that fowler passes right by estabrook and he appears to say "you got the call right". I'm not the greatest lip reader, but I'm 90% sure that's what he said.

mark38090 said...

I think this is why Scully is hall of fame. That's just good quality announcing. As far as the play, I think either way they rule someone gets tossed.

tmac said...

The old school in me says every time a call is changed the manager should get run.... The new school in me says if the manager wants the call to be right he can't dispute the call being right.... ARG!!!

kickersrule said...

Even though I couldnt handle the rockies annoucers I wish every ejection video was that long and actually showed everything.

Jim R. said...

This is as close as it ever gets, folks. What I'm confused about is how ANY of the umpires (without the benefit of slo-mo replay) had a good enough look to be 100% convinced that the original "out" call was wrong.

SJR said...

Very close, but I would go with a catch. And I agree that someone was leaving over this no matter which way it ultimately went.

Anonymous said...

Eric: I agree. This is vintage Vin Scully. What a great announcer.

SPballsandstrikes said...

Love Vin Scully's call and his accuracy in determining/describing why Paul wasn't the umpire to call play.

I still remember the time Paul appeared to have talked Tim Mc. into saying it was a homerun off the monster seats at fenway and Timmy didn't listen,thus causing the "push" during the argument with tito.

Back on subject.Everett at third would have a distant look,but possible the best angle to see the ball bounce. Laz was probably with Mike as the number 2 man on the crew.

UmpsRule said...

Great, I repeat great call by Scully. This call was about as tough as it gets.

Anonymous said...

I agree that this is a tough call live but after reply I dont get how anyone can think that it is a catch.

Anonymous said...

I had the same thought, Josh7377. Looks like Fowler told him it was the right call.

The ball hits his glove first, which pushes the glove back, then bounces off the ground and up into his glove. No catch.

Jimmy Jack said...

Young umpires: Take your advice from Vin Scully with this play for he knows more about umpiring than most players and coaches.

"The man who calls it always looks to say, 'did you see it differently?' It certainly wouldn't be the plate umpire. It might be the third base umpire who might see like the first base umpire because the second base umpire was up inside the bag because he had A.J. Ellis running to the bag."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:07 AM:

Wasn't Estabrook the one who made the initial call? If so, Fowler was saying Estabrook had it correct, while the overturned call was incorrect. Therefore, he wasn't *agreeing* with the overturned call, but with the initial call of 'out'.

That may have been what you were thinking anyways, but just wanted to make that point.

cyclone14 said...

looks like fowler is saying 'that's the right call'...meaning the correct call was made in the end.

tmac said...

unless you are inside Fowler's mind you CAN NOT determine if he is saying the crew got it right or Estabrook got it right.

He does appear to say "you got it right"

Brett said...

I think this is a really tough call. I think they got it right initially. In not look at the ground but the positioning of the glove, I see the ball hit what would be the index finger on the glove the bounce rather oddly into the webbing. I watched this replay several times and found nothing that would convince me that it was a catch. I agree that someone is grabbing an early shower here regardless of what you do. The problem has been that now the replay issue is alive, umpire crews seem to be reversing most any close catch/no catch. Again, nothing i can see says this was not a catch. I think Everitt blew this call in overturning Estabrook, which happens sometimes when a veteran crew chief tries to protect a young umpire.

Mundane said...

I am no expert on 4 man mechanics, but why would the 2B umpire be on the infield with a 3-2 count on the batter and two outs. Obviously there cannot be a SB attempt.

Is the ML mechanics saying that watching a runner tag 2B is more important than having an umpire be close enough to rule on a catch?

Anonymous said...

@Mundane: You could still very easily have a ground ball turn into a force out at second. While there can't be a steal there, if the 2b umpire is in the outfield, you have no one to umpire the potential play at second. You also miss potential interference, obstruction, etc. The 2b umpire will only be in the outfield with no runners on or a runner at third only.

Turducken said...

Fowler was telling Estabrook that he had the call right originally. This is evidenced in two ways. The first, being, that he told Tracy prior to antics, that he caught the ball. There is no way that Tracy's going to get that animated without knowledge from Fowler that he did indeed catch the ball. The second, being, the comments he made after the game to the Denver Post, in which he said, "I guess we have to play hard for 28 outs."

I've seen the replay about twenty times. Even I am not confident with the call that I am making, but I would have ruled Victorino out. The angle that sold it for me was the original angle from behind the plate; I see the ball enter the glove, and I see it take a funky bounce; but in the process, I don't see the ball ever leave the glove.

Anonymous said...

Tmac: Plenty of evidence to show what Fowler meant by that.

Anonymous said...

Cyclone: Fowler said "you got it right" not "that is the right call". The difference matters in this case.

MattAB said...

To me, the way the ball hits the very front of the glove, then bounces hard straight up, leads me to believe that it hit the ground as well, and not just the glove. But, this one is still pretty close. In the end, I say no catch. Also, it is kind of funny that I find Hawk Harrelson's "you gotta be bleeping me!" expression to be about the most annoying thing in baseball, yet, when Scully edits stuff, it's kind of enduring. I guess that's the difference between a knowledgable baseball veteran, in Scully, and a complete hack, in Harrelson.

Russ said...

Paul Nauert just ejected Dustin Pedroia. I have no idea what happened on the play but Dustin must have said a magic word as Nauert rarely ejects anybody.

kickersrule said...

Russ

Was the call correct or incorrect?

Russ said...

I haven't seen the play yet so I have absolutely no idea. I don't even know what Pedroia was arguing

Anonymous said...

Russ and Kickersrule,

Call was horrible. Pedroia checked the swing, called out on strikes. He went nuts, and Nauert let him go from the dugout for awhile. He finally told him that was enough, but he kept barking; Nauert really didn't want to toss him.

Up comes the 9th, Texas hitter checks swing on pitch in where he gets hit in the hand. Pedroia reignites the fire with Nauert, tossed. Valentine comes out screaming, but Nauert let him stay.


-Turducken

Anonymous said...

This is one of those plays that makes me thankful I don't have to deal with these situations. I believe the call of no catch is correct, but I'm just not confident enough based off of the replay. I agree with some of the previous comments that if the call stood, then Mattingly would have been ejected.

@Jim R.

I agree. When we can't even be positive with slo-mo replay on hand, I just don't see how anyone had a good enough view to overrule the call. Perhaps Mike Everitt saw the bounce from the third base line.

Anonymous said...

Don't they know that all four umpires "Watch the ball, glance at the runner?"

Since when? Obviously, you went to a different school than I did. Who's watching the touch at first? Who's watching for potential obstruction?

All 4 do not watch the ball.

Anonymous said...

I still do not comprehend how you reverse an out call into a no catch. That should not be allowed. If you are unsure, call a no catch. If you reverse it, you can always send runners back.

It's like changing a foul to a fair. Once it's called, it's done.

Gil Imber said...

After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a 5-0-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Five Appeals Board members voted to confirm Quality of Correctness and one voted to defer it.

Per Curiam Opinion:
Replays indicate that, due to the physical properties of a bounding baseball, the ball struck an object foreign to the defensive player prior to settling in the glove; therefore the Original Ruling must be affirmed.

Concurring Opinion, tmac:
I am confirming said call. After consultation with multiple replay angles the ball hits the ground. It is a trap. Having had this play numerous times it's almost impossible to catch the ball in the webbing and have the ball change direction in plain sight and stay in the glove.. it's almost always a trap.

Concurring Opinion, RichMSN:
It's a gutsy reversal because it was pretty damned close to changing direction from hitting the webbing of the glove. I'm confirming also.

Concurring Opinion, Jeremy:
I definitely see the trap, right reversal and correct call. I confirm.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

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

Quality of Correctness has been affirmed, 5-0-1.

Post a Comment