Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Ejection 111: Brian Knight (5)

1B Umpire Brian Knight ejected Mariners Manager Eric Wedge for arguing a safe call in the bottom of the 14th inning of the Orioles-Mariners game. With none on and none out, Orioles batter Omar Quintanilla hit a 1-1 slider from Mariners pitcher Shawn Kelley on the ground to second baseman Dustin Ackley, throw to first baseman Mike Carp, who stretched in an attempt to keep his foot on first base as Quintanilla arrived at the bag. Replays indicate Carp successfully fielded the throw and tagged first base prior to Quintanilla's arrival, the call was incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the contest was tied, 7-7. The Orioles ultimately won the contest, 8-7, in 14 innings.

This is Brian Knight (91)'s fifth ejection of 2012.
Brian Knight now has -4 points in the UEFL (-2 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = -4).
Crew Chief Mike Winters now has 3 points in the Crew Division (3 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 3).
*After review, Quality of Correctness has been affirmed in a 5-0-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.

This is the 111th ejection of 2012.
This is the 56th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is the Mariners' 1st ejection of 2012, 4th in the AL West (OAK, TEX 4; LAA 3; SEA 1).
This is Eric Wedge's first ejection since July 9, 2011 (Sam Holbrook; QOC = Correct).
This is Brian Knight's first ejection since July 31 (Jerry Narron & Ron Roenicke; QOC = Incorrect).

Wrap: Mariners at Orioles, 8/7/12
Video: Following a safe (pulled foot) call at first base, Wedge is tossed arguing that the runner was out

60 comments :

Russ said...

Is it just me or is Brian Knight's demeanor during these ejections absolutely horrible. It's like he doesn't even listen to what the Manager has to say. I don't like ragging on Umpires that much but Brian Knight has really upset me with the way he goes about things. First off, he is in the lower echelon of Umpires that is very obvious to me. He consistently misses calls on the bases. But my real problem with him is the pompous attitude he brings to the field. He is only in his second season in the league and already he looks like he would rather be anywhere else but there. People get mad at Bob Davidson, Angel Hernandez and CB Bucknor all the time but at least they are pationate about the game and are enthusiastic when out on the field. I am not asking Brian to be over the top, I just wish he took more pride in his calls because he just seems to be guessing out there more times than not. He has 5 ejections this year only 1 resulting from a correct call and that was a correct call made by crewmmate Wally Bell. Last year he had 6 ejections and only 3 of them were on correct calls. You've got to do better than that. I thought he would be better this season and was rooting for him to do well. IMO, he has a much better crew this season. I really liked him when he was a AAA Call-up and appreciate that it took awhile for him to get called up and he was passed over many times. But I think over the last two years we are seeing why he may have been passed up all those times. He is only in his second season so he can change, but I want his on-field demeanor to improve drastically.

Turducken said...

I don't really understand how Knight kicks this one. I mean, the ball beats the runner by a good two steps; all he has to do is secure in his mind that Carp had his foot on the bag; that's all he had to confirm. And he kicked it. He was looking right at his foot; just brutal.

Russ, I agree. Although this one hasn't been as bad as previous ones, see Leyland/Reinicke.

Anonymous said...

Horrible call. It was easy enough to see he blew it in real-time, but the replays make you wonder just what game he was watching. It's a shame when marathon games are ruined by blown calls like that 19-inning game last year.

Big Marc said...

Good call, I see a pulled foot. On 2 of the angles I can see the foot stop because of the bag........ That tells me the foot did get pulled off the bag on the 1st stretch.
I can see the momentum of the foot completely stop, this should not happen if the foot was on the bag. The foot must be off the bag.
This all appears to happen after the runner has touched the base. Good call.
Challenge.

Mike said...

He could have at least asked for help. The home plate umpire had no other responsibilities on that play so he should have been able to assist with pulling off the bag..

Jeff Kling said...

Mike...he's staring right at it with the best angle, who's gonna give him help?
Big Marc...thank you...where is the definitive video that says his foot is on the bag?..

Anonymous said...

I don't see a definitive angle which says his foot was either on/off the bag. The call should be inconclusive.

MattAB said...

Some of the more experienced guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you're ever really supposed to go to the homeplate umpire on a pulled foot, in a 4 man mechanic, unless you're really terribly screened for some reason. I'm under the impression that checking with the homeplate ump is more reserved for 2 and 3 man mechanics, when the umpire is up the middle. I would suspect that on this play, with Knight standing right on top of it, that if he would have asked for help from Mark Wegner, it would basically look like he was just trying to pass the buck on the call. Getting help is a good thing, if the situation warrants it, but you should never use getting help as an excuse to pass off accountability.

Troy said...

Mike, why would he ask for help? He was right on top of the play and in position. I assume he saw some light between the foot and the bag, and I don't see any angle to disprove that.

Another example of an umpire controversy that replay wouldn't solve.

Dan said...

The slow motion replay from 1:12 on shows that Carp's foot was on the bag when he caught the ball, well before the runner touched the base.

People are saying there's no angle to prove that his foot wasn't off the base. I see no angle that proves that his foot was off the base. Aren't umpires supposed to call what they see, and not guess? Knight got the call wrong in my view.

mark38090 said...

I agree with the others here, I don't see conclusive video showing foot on bag. As far as mechanics go, I do a lot of two man and even then only go to U1 when ask by coach and I'm in b or c.

Double Down for Donuts said...

"Another example of an umpire controversy that replay wouldn't solve. "

Umm, not sure how you think so. Replay would most definitely help here. This is not something that is subjective. This WAS close despite what people think, BTW.

Brian Knight needs to step up his game. He's not making a good name for himself and he is actually a good umpire. He needs to start showing it.

JeremyJ said...

Big Marc said it, there's no good video that shows he's on the bag when he made the catch, and the whole thing just looks wrong if he is. Having made that stretch in my younger days, it's hard to maintain contact once you lose your heal like he clearly did.

@MattAB in four man mechanics, there is absolutely no reason to ask for help on that play. He was closest, and was in the recommended position with the correct angle and distance. And as the video shows, in that play, you are supposed to be drilled in on that foot, that's the only thing you're looking at.

Brett said...

I would have to say the replay angles we have are inconclusive at best. Nothing to show me he was clearly on the bag. I agree Double Down that he really needs to step his game up, he is not as bad an umpire as we have seen from him. Would like to see other angles, Second on a challenge.

RadioPearl said...

I agree with the challenge on this and I feel the video is inconclusive. There are some signs there that there might be a pulled foot but there are no good camera angles to prove one way or the other. That being said, if Knight makes an out call here nobody says a word.

SPballsandstrikes said...

When Adrian Johnson was a triple-A call up,and in his first year he seemed to have this tough guy chip on his shoulder kind of attitude. Knight seems to have the exact same attitude, except in year two. His foot was barely on it,but unless it is obvious that there is a clear gap, the out call should have been made.

I give Knight credit, he didn't point to the scoreboard this time around....(sarcasm)

UmpsRule said...

Replays looked inconclusive to me. We don't know what Wedge said to prompt the ejection, but remember that Wedge does have a history of arguing animatedly.

Troy said...

DDFD, I mean that we have the benefit of replay and people on this board are still arguing about whether the foot came off or not. Whether it would theoretically be upheld or overturned with a replay review, there are still reasonable people who will disagree. Hence, there is still going to be umpiring controversy.

If you use NFL replay rules, I'm not sure there is clear and conclusive evidence that the foot was on the bag, therefore the umpire is given the benefit of the doubt, and so the call would probably stand under replay.

Anonymous said...

replay absolutely DOES NOT CLEARLY INDICATE foot was on bag--could very easily been off a half inch--unless there are other camera angles and close up to prove differently it is absurd to state factually that this call was blown...Brian had best look in the place at it..perfect angle...perfect. Show me a replay that clearly shows his foot on the bag..enough said

Marc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Russ said...

OK, so looking back on my comments I was a little harsh on BK, but my main point still stands. Whether he got this call right or not, I cannot stand the seeming arrogance coming from him during every argument. He wasn't like that as a AAA call-up. I don't want to speculate, but I think the All Star Game Assignment might have given him a little bit of cockiness. Since the assignment was announced he has 4 ejections all coming from incorrect calls and has been acting up in the process. Like I said in my first post, he is only in his second year so he has time to change, but he needs to make an attitude adjustment soon.

Double Down for Donuts said...

"DDFD, I mean that we have the benefit of replay and people on this board are still arguing about whether the foot came off or not. Whether it would theoretically be upheld or overturned with a replay review, there are still reasonable people who will disagree. Hence, there is still going to be umpiring controversy. "

Agreed. I am not sure I agree that we don't have an angle, though. We don't get to see all of the camera angles (MLB or NFL!) that the officials are privy to. And with good cause. =)

Oh, and so folks know, my moniker is in homage to my favorite television character (Homer Jay Simpson). Don't want people to think I am some fatass who sits around eating donuts all day. Well, unless they are Krispy Kremes!

Double Down for Donuts said...

"Brian had best look in the place at it..perfect angle...perfect. Show me a replay that clearly shows his foot on the bag..enough said "

I bet people said the same thing about Bill Welke (being in the "best" position) in the infamous Todd Helton out call against the Dodgers. =)

Gil Imber said...

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

Curt Crowley said...

At least Brian Knight is consistent. Consistently surly, arrogant, and phoning it in late in the game.

Anonymous said...

Are you guys joking? His foot never left the bag.

Anonymous said...

Watched it several times... good call by Knight!

Anonymous said...

Jeff Kling: Where is there definitive video showing that his foot was *not* on the bag? In my eyes, this is inconclusive at best.

Anonymous said...

Carp made a fantastic play and i agree that Brian Knight is a shitty umpire who needs to be replaced. His UEFL score is -4 so he doesnt exactly have a history of making accurate calls. He hesitated when guessing the call; this guy is an amateur.

RadioPearl said...

DD4D:
Welke was NOT in the best position in the Dodger's play. He was straight-lined. Knight is in perfect position to see this play. I still don't know if he got it right, or not. But he was in the best position in the ballpark to know if the foot came off or not.

Anonymous said...

Trying to figure out what BK did for everyone to call him arrogant. Looked like BK did exactly the right things when in an argument.

He stood there and let Wedge yell, then, when he had enough he tossed him.

BK appeared to do very little talking at all and just listened with a straight face. Do you want him to laugh and smile?

After the EJ he attempted to walk away.

Judgement of the call aside, How is this arrogant and surly?

BAPACop said...

Larry Vanover just tossed Chris Young for arguing a called strike three in the Diamondbacks-Pirates game.

BAPACop said...

And Justin Upton was apparently also ejected by someone during the inning break.

BAPACop said...

The box score says Larry Vanover also ejected Upton. There seems to be a whole lot of confusion on the field at the moment.

BAPACop said...

And now the box score says Upton was ejected by Alfonso Marquez.

Jeff Kling said...

Anon 12:17....agreed

UmpsRule said...

Yes, I'd also like to know how Knight was arrogant and surly.

Gil Imber said...

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

Majority Opinion. tmac:
Upon reviewing both feeds i am upholding the call. This is an interesting play in that the throw doesn't really take the 1st baseman off the bag. With that in mind, it does appear the 1st baseman was off the bag as his foot is going backwards after he catches the ball. Before batter runner touches 1st Carp's foot stops. Using common sense why would his foot stop. It stops because his foot contacts the bag. There is no conclusive angle that proves the 1st baseman's foot is on or off the bag. Using a little umpires intuition should tell you there is contact with the bag.

I think this is the best case ever for the uphold function.

Dissenting opinion, RichMSN:
The call is inconclusive and Knight is looking exactly where he's supposed to look. While he could be wrong, he could be right, too.

I'm voting to DEFER.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

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

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

Curt Crowley said...

UmpsRule, I would refer you to Russ' comment at 11:41, and adopt that as my assessment as well. Yeah that's the lazy way out, but I don't think anything I could say could sum up my feelings about Knight any better than the first comment by Russ.

Anonymous said...

What a joke... Knight gets the call right acording to the Seattle announcer "I see a gap" / there is no replay that shows he got it wrong... he is looking right at it. This board lost one more reader!

Big Marc said...

Gil, Tmac,

WTF??? What is going on here? Tmac explains exactly what I saw, but yet he still votes to confirm, or uphold the original call? Huh?

You guys cannot let this slide. Tmac MUST give a better explaination.
For Tmac to say his foot was off, and then say the foot only could be moving if it was off the bag, is correct. Why not overturn?
Tmac your explanation was sound if you were voting to overturn. But it makes ZERO sense if your not overturning the call.
The majority opinion doesn't fit the decision.
Even you all must admit that?
Read it again, in Tmac's opinion after I got done reading it, I thought it was for an overturn vote.

Gil Imber said...

tmac's opinion indicates that while F3 received the throw with his foot initially off (not in contact with) the base, a preponderance of the evidence suggests that F3's foot retouched first base at some point prior to B1's arrival, which has produced this ruling of "uphold."

Troy said...

I'm just aghast. I don't see any "preponderance of evidence." I haven't seen any replay that shows the play from the same or better angle than BK had. Might he have blown the call? Sure, but he was in the right position looking at the right spot, and for you to decide he was incorrect based on, what, assumptions? I'm disappointed. Really a blow to the credibility of the site.

Anonymous said...

In your decision it is stated that "It appears te 1st basemans foot is off the bag" I talked to someone who was at the game and he told me that he had a good view of the 1st baseman's foot OFF the bag by about 4 inches or more... eye witness! The runner even looks down because he knows it is a pulled foot! The anouncers state that they see a gap! But even after all of that your board says "1st baseman tag the bag"... really PROVE IT!

Anonymous said...

Of course you people who love to cite the announcers aren't actually WATCHING THE BROADCAST so you don't know that the Mariners broadcasters backtracked and came to the conclusion that he WAS on the base before the runner touched.

Zac said...

I would like Russ and Curt to explain to us why Knight was arrogant in THIS clip. Not past situations, but this one.

I'm not even in the UEFL, but I don't see how you can say he missed it for sure. It's inconclusive at worst.

Anonymous said...

tmac, have a lot of respect for you here, but you kicked this one. This one should have been deferred. RichMSN, again, gets it right.

Boozie said...

"There is no conclusive angle that proves the 1st baseman's foot is on or off the bag." -- tmac

You can paraphrase that quite simply; the video of the play is inconclusive.

So, we have two options from there. We can either uphold or confirm this, or defer this.

UPHOLD: "In the event that a play under appeal can be conclusively categorized or adjudged as Correct/Incorrect as a result of this action, through the use of conclusive and/or clear and/or convincing evidence, the appeal shall be either Upheld or Denied, as specified in Rule 6-4-b-1 or 6-4-b-2, respectively."

DEFER: "In the event that a play under appeal cannot be conclusively categorized or adjudged as Correct/Incorrect as a result of this action, through the lack of conclusive nor clear nor convincing evidence, the appeal shall be Deferred, as specified in Rule 6-4-b-3."

To put it in the words of Vin Scully, my god, that's some horse manure.

Anonymous said...

I'm challenging the decision of the Appeals Board. This must be able to go to the Supreme Appeals Board, no?

Curt Crowley said...

Zac, it's the "whatthef--kever" look on his face just before the ejection, the nose flick and just his general demeanor. He does not appear to be listening to what Hurdle is saying or making any effort to explain the call. Knight's general attitude and demeanor suggest that he just doesn't have time for this s--t.

Even the known hotheads will at least try to explain the call. Knight seems like he believes that he owes an explanation to no one, and that arguing with him is delaying him finishing the game and taking a nap.

Anonymous said...

This isn't going away, tmac. You owe the participants in this league a better explanation than that. And to all those who voted with tmac, seemingly concurring with him, you should provide an explanation, too.

Gil Imber said...

The Appeals Board's decision has been submitted for review to the UEFL Commissioners and Appellate Interpreter, pursuant to Rule 9-2, the Finality and Overwhelming Exemption clause.

Opinion, Gil:
Rule 9-2 specifies that, for an Appeals Board's decision to be considered, "overwhelming evidence" must "surface to overturn the challenged decision." Because no overwhelming evidence exists or has been introduced to suggest the Board arrived at its conclusion in error or in contrast to the Rules concerning the Appeals Board—it is plausable that the Board's Majority Opinion of "foot stops" and "intuition" may be construed as "convincing evidence" pursuant to Rule 6-5-a—and because the Board furthermore employed an overwhelming 5-0-1 margin to arrive at its decision, it would therefore be irresponsible and in contrast to the written and spirit of the Rules to reverse the Board's finding.

Therefore, the Appellate Interpreter affirms the UEFL Appeal Board's ruling.

tmac said...

Wow i didn't know a ruling could cause this much controversy!!

Rich and i have different opinions on the structure of upholding and defering persuent to UEFL rules. While i side with the comish who makes the ruling he sides with the umpire. WHile this play was in no way conclusive. I did use instinct and a bit of experience to determine what happened. When you watch this play Carp's foot stops while going back to the bag. What stopped his foot? When someone can answer me that question and tell me it wasn't the bag I'll change my mind.

This isn't a life or death decision it's just an educated opinion on what I believe happened.. Can it be wrong: Yes. Is it? Well that's a different debate entirely!!

Anonymous said...

If you can be wrong, then you MUST defer.

RichMSN said...

I do side with the umpire. The commissioner's ruling, to me, is nothing special -- to me, it's making a ruling based on watching the videos available, the exact same thing I'm asked to do as a member of the UEFL appeals board.

So, I have a choice -- use "instinct and a bit of experience" (which I have also after 25 years of umpiring) or realize I don't have the proper angle on the play presented to me and there's an umpire who does and has no other job but to look there.

Who knows why his foot stopped? Maybe he couldn't stretch his leg any further. Maybe tmac is right. But I simply don't know with enough certainty to vote to uphold a ruling of "incorrect."

I always start with the umpire being correct until I'm shown that he isn't. The replays presented to me did not meet that burden of proof, in my opinion.

And I agree with tmac -- this is only the UEFL, not life or death.

Troy said...

So, you can't overturn the original UEFL ruling because there's not evidence that you were wrong. Which sounds like the same argument I would use to uphold the original umpire's ruling.

Irony. LOL.

Anonymous said...

His foot stopped because he could not go any further / watch the video again. Note what the runner is looking at... note the first thing that the play by play guy says and note that I posted that I talked to someone at the game that said he saw the gap!

Brett said...

I have really enjoyed this exercise up to this point. Any person with eyes can see that you cannot tell from the replay angle whether he was on the bag or off the bag. My experience as an umpire tells me that he is right on top of it. I am in no way saying he got it right but this replay is not conclusive at all. In fact, like we say in the South, this replay is about as clear as mud. What is the point of having an appeals board if no one is willing to see the video for what it is. I like the idea behind the appeals board and process but there has to be a point when anyone with common sense says this is inconclusive. That being said, I hope this get corrected eventually.

Anonymous said...

No, no, and no. This is really getting silly now. The clarification of tmac says that the foot did appear to stop, and that means it contacted the bag, which I agree with, but the stopping of the foot, which indicates contact with the bag was prior to the runner touching. That simply does not fit the video evidence.
Tmac's statement that this isn't life or death, is telling.
It's clear that the intial decsion was quick. I'll admit at 1st glance, and on a quick look the umpire looked to be in the wrong.
But now after you read all the posts, and watch the play again, why are you all being so stubborn?
And for tmac to basically say, right or wrong who cares? Shows to me, even tmac is no longer willing defend this.

What leaves most of us scratching our heads is, had the intial decsion been ruled as a correct call, you would be saying the exact same thing. Of course had you made that decsion, you would have been correct.

Anonymous said...

b.s.

Post a Comment