Sunday, May 26, 2013

MLB Ejection 044: Mike Winters (1; Kevin Frandsen)

HP Umpire Mike Winters ejected Phillies 3B Kevin Frandsen for arguing a swinging strike call (strikeout) in the top of the 4th inning of the Phillies-Nationals game. With two out and none on, Frandsen attempted to check
Frandsen heaved for throwing bat after call.
his swing on a 0-2 curveball from Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg. Replays indicate Frandsen attempted to strike the pitch, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the contest was tied, 0-0. The Nationals ultimately won the contest, 6-1.

This is Mike Winters (33)'s first ejection of 2013.
Mike Winters now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Crew Chief Mike Winters now has 4 points in the Crew Division (3 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 4).

This is the 44th ejection of 2013.
This is the 20th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Frandsen was 0-1 in the contest.
This the Phillies' second ejection of 2013, T-1st in the NL East (NYM, PHI, WAS 2; ATL 1; MIA 0).
This is Kevin Frandsen's first career MLB ejection.
This is the Mike Winters' first ejection since July 28, 2012 (Dale Sveum; QOC = N).

Wrap: Philadelphia Phillies vs. Washington Nationals, 5/26/13
Video: After striking out, Frandsen slams bat in reaction to call and gets tossed (PHI)

19 comments :

Gil Imber said...

How is that a correct call? It certainly didn't appear that he swung.

Gil Imber said...

I agree, didn't look like a swing to me

Gil Imber said...

"Definitely did not"


I got him going 100%. This is what makes me so mad about broadcasters. They have a responsibility to fill the viewer in on things they might not know, and now a million people at home are 100% sure that Winters missed that call, when he didn't. It's not fair to umpires or fans, or the game of baseball. I've seen far more broadcasters make comments they should be ashamed of than I've seen umpires make calls they should be ashamed of this season.

Gil Imber said...

If the batter went 100%, there wouldn't have been an argument...

Gil Imber said...

The question is not whether he swung or not, but rather whether or not he attempted to strike the ball, or offered at the pitch.

Gil Imber said...

Challenge. I do not believe Frandsen offered at this pitch.

Gil Imber said...

I'd bang that 100% of the time. Look at the position of Frandsen's hands on the offer.


Am I tipping my hand on the impending challenge? :)

Gil Imber said...

I will wait to comment until the challenge: but how great is Mike Winters's mustache? Shades of Bill Hohn's!

Gil Imber said...

I'll follow suit here (he did). But totally agree. Even if Winters was wrong (he wasnt) he is still so so right cause of the stash!

Gil Imber said...

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

Gil Imber said...

He swung at that no question. Great call by Winters and horrible commentating by the Nationals Broadcasters.

Gil Imber said...

I withdraw my previous statement... just watched the video again, this time using the pause feature to slow it down, and it sure looks like a swing/attempt to strike the ball/offer at the pitch/whatever you want to call it

Gil Imber said...

He clearly attempted to swing at the ball. Good call by Winters and also a great stache he has growing. GREAT JOB!

Gil Imber said...

I said I had him going 100%. My point is that there is no way you can state that he missed that as a fact, which is what the broadcasters did.

Gil Imber said...

I know what you meant. I was having a little fun with the semantics. Personally, I think he offered at the pitch, not because of where the bat was, but where his hands were.

Gil Imber said...

don't agree with the call, but do agree with the ejection because he looked at winters and then slammed the bat. that'll get you tossed pretty much everytime,

Gil Imber said...

In re 044 Winters 1

After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a 3-1-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members voted to confirm the Original Ruling and one elected to overturn it.

Majority Opinion, BT_Blue:
Seeing as how the MLB rulebook does not give a ruling on how to judge a check swing. Is arbitrary as far as I can tell. In my opinion, Frandsen did indeed attempt to strike at the ball and thusly, the strike call was correct. So I will be voting to confirm Winters ruling (as well as his amazing stash).

Dissenting Opinion, Turducken:
STRIKE (2.00(a)): A strike is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which is struck at by the batter and is missed. In this particular case, the umpire must determine whether the batter attempted to strike the pitch. To me, I use two methods in determining intent: wrists and plane of bat, with a greater emphasis on wrists. In this particular case [and in my discretion], Frandsen did not break his wrists while attempting to strike the pitch nor did his swing break the plane. I vote to overturn.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: tmac, RichMSN, BT_Blue
Upheld: -
Overturned: Turducken
Abstained: Gil (posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (Deployment), yawetag (Vacation)

Gil Imber said...

The ejection was for the spiked bat, he didn't actually argue the call. Equipment fine would have been enough for him throwing the bat. Oh well though, don't mind the ejection.

Gil Imber said...

There are a couple of things I think about as I watched the video (only once). First, broadcasters are idiots and they cause idiot fans (and idiot little league coaches/parents). There is absolutely no "definitely" when dealing with a checked swing. I would love to ask broadcasters after that kind of a comment to tell me what makes a checked swing definite...and from where their definition is based.

Next is the ejection...slam dunk ejection. The slamming of the bat is an attempt to show up the umpire. Regardless of the showing up being intentional or unintentional that deserves an early shower at all levels of ball.

Post a Comment