Monday, September 10, 2012

Ejection 160: Angel Campos (7)

2B Umpire Angel Campos ejected Rockies Manager Jim Tracy for arguing an out call in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Giants-Rockies game. With one out and one on, Rockies batter Carlos Gonzalez hit a 2-2 fastball from Giants pitcher Jeremy Affeldt on the ground to second baseman Marco Scutaro, who attempted to tag baserunner R1 Josh Rutledge enroute to completing the double play by throwing to first baseman Brandon Belt. Replays indicate Scutaro's glove failed to make contact with Rutledge as he ran by while evidence suggests Rutledge's path of travel did take him out of the baseline pursuant to Rule 7.08(a)(1), the call was correct (see also: UEFL Rule 6-2-b-6-a). The call is now incorrect.* At the time of the ejection, the Rockies were leading, 6-4. The Rockies ultimately won the contest, 6-5.

This is Angel Campos (84)'s seventh ejection of 2012.
Angel Campos now has 21 points in the UEFL (23 Previous + 3 AAA + -1 Penalty + -4 Incorrect Call = 21) and remains the UEFL points leader.
Crew Chief Tim McClelland now has 3 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (3 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 3).
*QOC has been reversed by the UEFL Appeals Board (3-2).

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 160th ejection of 2012.
This is the 74th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is the Rockies' 3rd ejection of 2012, 4th in the NL West (LAD 11; SD, SF 4; COL 3; AZ 2).
This is Jim Tracy's first ejection since August 6 (Mike Everitt; QOC = Correct).
This is Angel Campos' first ejection since August 22 (Ozzie Guillen; QOC = Correct).

Wrap: San Francisco Giants at Colorado Rockies, 9/10/12
Video: Tracy argues close out call at second base as Giants escape 7th inning jam (COL)

28 comments :

d2e9598a-fbcb-11e1-8df6-000f20980440 said...

Guys, I'm an umpire, but 'out of the baseline' was not the call, nor was that the refuting argument. Whether or not the outcome is correct, the end cannot justify the means for the purposes of the perception of fairness on your board.

I love what you guys provide here, and I love what you do, but this is about correct or incorrect calls, as called. This is a clearly incorrect call.

Anonymous said...

Challenge. Campos made no indication that the runner ran out of the base line. His call was that the runner was tagged, which was incorrect

Anonymous said...

There's no chance that R1 was out of the baseline. No way that the runner deviated more than three feet into the infield from the start of the tag attempt.

I'd suggest the commissioners review this again before letting the appeal board get a hold of it.

Anonymous said...

To add to this, that left foot on the grass happens well after the tag attempt -- the picture above is misleading and, IMO, wrong. All that matters is this: Where was the runner when the tag attempt was made (A) compared with where the runner is when the tag attempt started (B) ?

There's no way he moved more than 3 feet from A to B.

Jett said...

This call was back-door right. He was out of the baseline, he was out in that regard. The whole "he called him out on the tag, not OOB" argument is a red herring and smokescreen to hide the fact that negative-infinty points Campos somehow got this call right and has over 20 points this year.

Cricket said...

When the tag is attempted, the runner was within the base line. I agree with anon 10:22 that the picture is misleading.

BAPACop said...

Rule 6-2-b-6-a, since some people here apparently couldn't be bothered to look through the UEFL rules page for it: "Any displayed reasoning for such a call, including a communicated application or interpretation of a rule, shall not affect the determination of Quality of Correctness. Quality of Correctness is governed by the (in)correctness of the call made, not by the quality of reasoning given for such a call."

So WHY he called him Out doesn't matter under UEFL rules; only whether or not he should have been called Out.

On the video provided in the wide angle when the tag attempt is made the runner appears to be well within the baseline and only steps out after it is already clear the tag is missed and he is no longer avoiding it. In the slow-motion replay at the end of the video it seems quite a bit closer and appears that stepping out of the baseline was an attempt to dodge the tag but he still only stepped out of the line after the tag had clearly missed. Not sure if it's the different angles, the different speeds, or the fact that I'm using a backup monitor, but this seems to depend on how strictly you want to interpret 7.08a1; if he's avoiding a tag that has no chance to get him do you still enforce the rule?

Also: The MLB video description claimed Scutaro was attempting to tag Brandon Belt, the Giants' first baseman.

Anonymous said...

Heck, at least MLB posted a video this time, I'll take what I can get - descriptions on UEFL are much better anyway.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, UEFL, Call was 100% wrong!

Gil Imber said...

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

Anonymous said...

it looks as though Campos points as if to say that Scutaro had tagged him when clearly he didn't, also Tracy says "he never fing touched him" and Campos shakes his head yes. so I believe the call to be wrong. I don't understand the hubris of some umpires how hard is it to just ask the crew, I guarantee 1B had to see the right call. Sure you'll be dealing with the other manager but at least you'll have exhausted a few efforts, if more crews promoted this the instant replay talks would go down and I don't care what anyone says you WILL be respected more by both players and managers. Oh and Gallarga would have his perfect game! Love what you guys do!!!

Anonymous said...

1. There is no way Campos should get credit for a correct call here. No way. He said the runner was tagged by a fielder. It didn't happen. Campos claimed an event took place in this game that simply didn't happen. Why is he going to get points? He shouldn't get points for an out of the baseline call he did not make. (And it sounds like this UEFL-invented OOB call might not even be right)
2. A poster chided Campos for not asking for help from the first base umpire. I'm not convinced the 1BU could have seen the tag attempt definitively enough to offer help if Campos had asked for it. Not when viewing the play in real time at least.
3. Yeah, Tracy, you might have had a legitimate beef here, but why do you have to tell the umpire "you're full of s---"? Now you're the bad guy and you deserve to get run no matter how wrong the call might have been.
4. Normally I agree with the broadcasters when they say that umpires shouldn't put their hands on players and managers, except in extraordinary circumstances. But the way McClelland put his hand on Tracy's hip was ridiculously gentle, almost calming, especially when you consider what a big guy McClelland is.

Anonymous said...

Terrible call. No tag and no way was he out of the baseline. Campos blew this call.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 2:07: The UEFL rules state that only whether or not the call was correct matters, not whether or not the umpire's reason for making the call was correct. This is why Campos could theoretically still earn points if the runner was out of the baseline. However, it's a moot point as I'm not convinced he was.

Anonymous said...

There is no way for us to definitively say he was out of the base line. Especially since the rule is three feet from where the runner was, to where he move when the tag was attempted.. Since the runner started running on the inside right after the all was hit, the line shown on the picture is misleading.

Anonymous said...

campos blew the call- should not be rewarded with points.. i dont even think he was out of the baseline either.

UmpsRule said...

Gil, it would be nice if you could please list how many ejections a manager has for the season, as well as the most recent one.

Russ said...

I can help out for this particular ejection. Jim Tracy has three ejection of the season.

6/10- Greg Gibson: No catch call-QOC Incorrect
8/6- Mike Everitt: No Catch- QOC Correct

I have a very good memory for this type of stuff and could go back to 2007 with this info which is why I am so good with Milb ejections as well, although I just started following those this year. I also find the UEFL Portal's historical section to be great for this info as well.

mainUmpire said...

I just want to comment on how many LA has compared to the rest of the NL West. 11! Wow.

Anonymous said...

Give me a break about touching the umpire!!! You see guys do that all the time especially crew chiefs when they come over and break it up- he was putting his hand on the side of Tracy as if to say: "Come on Jim, lets get back to the dugout" in a very calming way

You cannot even compare it to the Francona/West incident last year, I think the Rockies commentators would have made a better point if they were talking about this. Besides, I really doubt Jim Tracy cares about this- he was leaving the field anyway- just getting some final words in.

Anonymous said...

Campos called Rut out on the tag, not on the baseline ruling. This call is 100% incorrect, and Jim Tracy was absolutely correct to come out and argue.

One final beef I have with this. How is Tim McClelland allowed to place his hand on Tracy as he departs the argument? That seems inappropriate to me.

Anonymous said...

Reading the comments, it seems that most people don't know the definition of the baseline and when it is established.

RadioPearl said...

Didn't get to see it, but listening to the game last night it sounds as if there was a similar call in the Cubs @ Astros game last night.

Anonymous said...

So let's talk about that big "I" word here a bit...Intent.

The runner INTENDED to avoid a tag by deviating from the baseline. He deviated far enough to touch the infield grass and eventually the 2B has to continue his throw to 1B for the double play. We've all heard it said by coaches--you can stop running, but you can't leave the basepath. This guy tried to gun it to second; realized he wasn't going to be there fast enough; and tried to bend the rules to "escape"--that's leaving the basepath. He can't do that; we gotta give the fielder something to work with here, just like we give runners the chance to break up the double play with a hard slide.

Speaking of that "I" word; the INTENT of the UEFL is to not second-guess or mind-read umpires. For all we know Campos told Tracy I thought he got the tag; but at least the runner was out of baseline. Tracy's reaction was poor--it's a judgement call that only the ump three feet away can make and he's at least partially screened from the glove by the elusive runner moving sideways. UEFL has a good rule here to avoid trying to read too much into things that aren't clear on the film.

I think the runner is out. Campos called him out. UEFL rules say if the runner is out and the call should be out; then the call is correct. Not much here to challenge.

I do agree that Tracy seemed a bit too hot and vocal in this argument. Don't blame any ump for giving him the hook. Maybe Cuddyer is telling him how Gardenhire does it...

Anonymous said...

Check with the ump at first base? He's got enough to do getting into position to see the developing play at first--which is not in the same line of sight of second on this play.

Umps are already outnumbered 10-4, if not more on any given play; now we expect them to see each other's area's at the same time? Not realistic.

When's the last time you saw the referee toss a penalty flag for defensive pass interference on a hail mary pass? It's not gonna happen; and I don't care how much you think one official butchers a call, there are very limited opportunities to get help from another crewmate, and a simple tag/no-tag where the crewmate is busy in his own area is a last situation where you'd expect guys to ask for help.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:28:

He's on the grass only well after the tag attempt was over. A runner has every right to try to avoid a tag within the rules.

Gil Imber said...

After review, the Original Ruling has been reversed in a 3-2 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected to overturn the Original Ruling, one voted to confirm and one voted to uphold it.

Majority Opinion, RichMSN:
The tag attempt was well over before R1 got to the point in the picture -- I don't care how far away from the baseline he got after the tag attempt was over. He's not out of the baseline and the call was missed by Campos.

I agree that the correct call, regardless of the mechanic or of how he arrived to the correct call should be upheld. But I'm not willing to say it's the correct call. I think the call was missed.

At face value, this is a blown call. There was a tag attempt, there was a tag attempt missed. The commishes felt forced to add another element to the call -- I feel they did so improperly. That's why I voted to overturn.

Dissenting Opinion, tmac:
We must all remember "out of your baseline is" where you are in relation to the bag WHEN THE TAG IS BEING ATTEMPTED.

I'm very confused on this play as to what campos was doing, his positioning wasn't good, but I can't tell what is 3 feet and [as opined in Ejection 097: Tim Tschida (4)], without OVERWHELMING video evidence it is best to agree with the umpire's call as he was standing right there.

Dissenting Opinion, yawetag:
I'm interested in what indication the appellant wants. Campos pointed at the location of the tag attempt; we have no audio and, frankly, no video to prove what Campos actually called.

I'm Upholding the call.

Therefore, the Board reverses the Original Ruling.

Confirm: yawetag
Uphold: tmac
Overturn: Albertaumpire, BillMueller, RichMSN
Defer: None

The Original Ruling has been reversed, 3-2.

"Believe In IT" said...

7.08
Any runner is out when --
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his baseline to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; Basically the baseline then goes from the runner to the base. He is in the middle of this "new" baseline therefore he is not OUT of the baseline...

Post a Comment