Thursday, April 25, 2013

MLB Ejection 017: Dan Iassogna (1; Charlie Manuel)

3B Umpire Dan Iassogna ejected Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel for arguing an interference no-call by HP Umpire Mark Carlson in the top of the 9th inning of the Pirates-Phillies game. With none out and one on,
Carlson rules incidental contact per 7.09(j) Comment
Pirates batter Clint Barmes attempted a sacrifice bunt on a 1-1 fastball from Phillies pitcher Raul Valdes, the bunt fielded by catcher Erik Kratz, who threw to shortstop Jimmy Rollins to second baseman Chase Utley, baserunner R1 Neil Walker ruled safe at second and Barmes out at first. Replays indicate Barmes and Kratz collided in front of the home plate area with Kratz initiating the contact and subsequently gathering the batted ball (see notes regarding Rule 7.09(j) and Rule 7.09(j) Comment, below), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Pirates were leading, 6-4. The Pirates ultimately won the contest, 6-4.

This is Dan Iassogna (58)'s 1st ejection of 2013.
Dan Iassogna now has 3 points in the UEFL Standings (0 + 2 MLB + 1 Correct Call [Crewmate] = 3).
Crew Chief Dan Iassogna now has 1 point in the UEFL's Crew Division (0 + 1 Correct Call = 1).
*Rule 7.09(j) specifies that a runner shall be declared out for interference if he fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.
Rule 7.09(j) Comment states, "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called."
*After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed by the UEFL Appeals Board (5-1).

This is the 17th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 7th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Phillies' 1st ejection of 2013, T-1st in the NL East (ATL, PHI 1; MIA, NYM, WAS 0).
This is Charlie Manuel's first ejection since May 15, 2012 (Bob Davidson; QOC = Y).
This is Dan Iassogna's first ejection since July 18, 2012 (Joe Maddon; QOC = N).

Wrap: Pittsburgh Pirates vs. Philadelphia Phillies, 4/25/13
Video: Kratz pushes Barmes out of the way in order to field a batted ball, Carlson clears the play (PHI)

Relevant Play: HP Umpire Iassogna rules batter Matt Kemp out for interfering with C Hank Conger (2011)

29 comments :

Gil Imber said...

Challenge. The runner was not going to first base. He left the box and stopped in between the catcher and the ball. He then proceeded to make contact with Kratz as he attempted to throw the ball to second base.

Gil Imber said...

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

Gil Imber said...

How come the only time broadcasters use the term obstruction, it is to refer to offensive interference instead of actual obstruction? I'm surprised we didn't get one of those out of the baseline arguments. Coincidentally if we had obstruction, B1 would be standing on first base.


They have a problem with Dan Iassogna coming over to herd Charlie off the field when its clear he's not letting up with Carlson, I have no problem with an acting crew chief helping his crewmates out like that - looks like Manuel was ejected not for being overtly unsportsmanlike, but just refusing to get off the field and let them continue playing the game.

Gil Imber said...

I agree. The runner never made a move to try and get to first. He hit the ball, took a step, and just stopped

Gil Imber said...

The play is listed as correct and then an example of the same thing is given and and out was called then.

Gil Imber said...

Could the difference be that in the Matt Kemp play, he stopped right in front of Hank Conger, preventing Conger from fielding the ball versus in the present case, you have Kratz who was able to field the ball in part because Barmes held short of the area in front of home plate?


The way I'm reading it, if the ball was hit toward the right handed batter's box and Barmes holds short, you have a collision ala Kemp/Conger and that's interference, but if Barmes holds short because Kratz has right-of-way privs up the middle, and Kratz still has a path to field the ball, which he clearly does as evidenced by the fact that he picked it up and threw it towards second base, then the contact has to be no-called as it was. I mean, that's pretty much what the Rule 7.06j Comment says - that there generally is no violation when such contact occurs. What's Barmes supposed to do? Run into the catcher who is fielding the ball right in front of Barmes?

Gil Imber said...

He stopped between Kratz and the ball, then proceeded to make contact with Kratz as Kratz threw to second.

Gil Imber said...

So then that's the key difference. Conger had right-of-way privs to field the batted ball and was prevented from doing so by Kemp. That's interference.


Kratz also had right-of-way privs to field the batted ball and he successfully was able to do so. Kratz then not only loses his right-of-way privilege but Barmes actually gains right-of-way for any subsequent action (eg the throw to second) until Barmes is put out. Since Kratz didn't tag Barmes and Barmes stayed alive until the return throw to first base, he had the right to be there. No interference.

Gil Imber said...

He didn't stop, the catcher pushed him. Barmes is allowed to run to first base.

Gil Imber said...

So what are we now 5 for 6 on ejections being challenged?

Gil Imber said...

Appeal #5 of six total challenges.

Gil Imber said...

Yes, but it appears to me that he steps FORWARD toward the mound and not toward first. But that is my perspective/opinion. I agree with HBK and Paul. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one BAPA! (I usually agree with your sentiments 100% but not here!) =-)

Gil Imber said...

No one ever gets the terms correct. I ref soccer and "obstruction" is now called "impeding", but I can't tell you how many times I hear coaches or players ask for an obstruction call. =-) Ah, semantics. It keeps professional writers like me employed! LOL

Gil Imber said...

I think that step towards the mound was an instinctive reaction to avoid contact with the catcher moving towards him, but I can see why someone else would disagree. Will be interesting to see what happens with the challenge.

Gil Imber said...

Crew chief Dan Iassogna. Hmm.

Gil Imber said...

John Gibbons just got tossed for the second straight game on a reversed out call at first base.

Gil Imber said...

Damnit I missed it. I was watching the 2013 NFL Draft.

Gil Imber said...

Wow, Gibbens is really getting his money's worth with this series and crew.

Gil Imber said...

Here is the video link:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=26588237&c_id=mlb

Gil Imber said...

Two different crews, yesterday they were in Baltimore today they are at Yankee stadium

Gil Imber said...

1) The key word in the rule is 'generally', and this is not general - this is intentional interference. All is fair play until the batter plainly leans backward onto the catcher. This is an attempt to break up a double-play, so r1 is out as well as batter.
2) I'm fine with Iassonia as acting crew chief coming down to break up the discussion, however from what I hear, this isn't normally done in pro baseball. Most of the time there's what seems to be an unwritten code that the umpire who called it is the one you talk to, and then let that umpire deal with it. The only chief that I can think of that sometimes meanders into active arguments (before an ejection) is Dale Scott -- who has led Iassonia's crew for the last two seasons if I'm not mistaken. So with that, I'm not upset at the commentators for saying "Charlie is asking Iassonia what he's doing there," as they were probably right about that.
3) This is a quagmire of a play. I think with the benefit of slow-motion replay, we have to credit the batter for interference, credit Mark Carlson for catching a tough play, credit Charlie for sticking up for his team, and credit Danny for sticking up for his crewmate.

Gil Imber said...

Yeah, this is a tough one. But I am still an umpiring padawan (4 years) and have much to learn!

Gil Imber said...

This was supposed to be for Andrew's comment

Gil Imber said...

Jim Reynolds ejected A's Pitching Coach Curt Young for arguing a check swing call as he was making a mound visit. There has been a lot of ejections in the last week or so.

Gil Imber said...

Why is Iassogna the acting crew chief over Mark Carlson? I thought it went according to seniority.

Gil Imber said...

HUH? You're giving credit on this play to an umpire who apparently was neutered? You can't let a manager on the field follow you around for over 2 minutes without running him. That was embarassing.

Gil Imber said...

Because Iassogna has more Playoff appearances and has worked a World Series.For example last year Larry Vanover and Brian O'Nora were on the same crew one week and even though Vanover has seniority, O'Nora was the CC due to more playoff appearances.

Gil Imber said...

In re Ejection 017: Dan Iassogna 1

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

Majority Opinion, Jeremy:
I vote to confirm the ruling. Barnes did not willfully or intentionally interfere with Kratz. He stepped forward only to not directly run into Kratz. Additionally, Kratz intentionally initiated contact with a push of Barnes. This is a great application of Rule 7.09(j) Comment.

Concurring Opinion, RichMSN:
Classic Armbrister tangle/untangle. Then Kratz shoved the BR. Excellent call (of nothing). Confirm.

Concurring Opinion, yawetag:
It's the classic F2/BR tangle. Both were doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Concurring Opinion, BT_Blue:
Barmes was trying to give Kratz room and it was Kratz that actually shoved Barmes into his own way. Confirm/Uphold the original QOC.

Dissenting Opinion, Turducken:

Rule 2.00 [Interference]: "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

In this particular case, the F1 attempts to make a play on the ball. The BR, in my judgment, takes a non-normal route towards first base that impedes a fielder making a play. By definition, I would term this interference.

Examining the situation closer: While F1 makes initial contact with the BR, the violation occurs as F1 falls down. The BR obstructed the throw to second base. I could cite 7.09(J) as my reason for the argument; I could also cite 7.09(G), as the play would have been [at least] relatively close at second base, and BR would have likely been put-out on the assist from the middle infielder.

From my experience, 7.09(J) comment comes into play when the ball is located closer to home plate. In this case, the F1 makes the play at nearly the lip of the infield. Further, my experience asks me to evaluate an internal question: could the runner have avoided interference?

In this case, I believe that prior to turning around, the runner could have gone to the other side of the F1 and proceeded up towards first base. Therefore, I vote to overturn.
-

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: Jeremy, tmac, RichMSN, yawetag, BT_Blue
Upheld: -
Overturned: Turducken
Deferred: -
Abstained: Gil (Posted Original Ruling)

Gil Imber said...

You caught that, did you? Note I didn't give him any credit except for standing behind home plate when something happened in front of him.

Post a Comment