Wednesday, June 5, 2013

MLB Ejection 062: Tony Randazzo (1; Mike Aviles)

HP Umpire Tony Randazzo ejected Indians shortstop Mike Aviles arguing a called foul ball after his at-bat following the top of the 9th inning of the Indians-Yankees game. With two out and none on, Aviles hit a
Aviles complains post-game and is dismissed.
1-1 cutter from Yankees closer Mariano Rivera to right fielder Ichiro Suzuki for the final out of the ballgame. Randazzo previously ruled Aviles fouled off the 0-0 pitch on a check swing; because this ejection occurred after the at-bat to end the game, pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-5-c, the call was irrecusable.* At the time of the ejection, the Yankees had won the contest, 4-3.

This is Tony Randazzo (11)'s 1st ejection of 2013.
Tony Randazzo now has 2 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 0 Irrecusable Call = 2).
Crew Chief Brian Gorman now has 2 points in the Crew Division (1 Previous + 1 Irrecusable Call = 2).
*UEFL Rule 6-5-c: "Quality of Correctness only applies to the call made directly prior to ejection, or, if balls/called strikes during a single at-bat, any pitch called during that at bat, provided that the call was against the ejected person (or his team) and this call realistically resulted in a different outcome of the at-bat."

This is the 62nd ejection of 2013.
This is the 28th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Aviles was 1-4 in the contest.
This the Indians' 4th ejection of 2013, 1st in the AL Central (CLE 4; KC 2; CWS, DET, MIN 1).
This is Mike Aviles' first ejection since May 17, 2012 (Dan Bellino; QOC = Y).
This is Tony Randazzo's first ejection since September 4, 2012 (Joe Girardi; QOC = Y).

Wrap: Cleveland Indians vs. New York Yankees, 6/4/13
Video: Aviles and Manager Terry Francona argue the foul ball call to start the at-bat (CLE)
Video: Aviles has parting shot for Randazzo while exiting the field and is punished with ejection (NYY)

27 comments :

Gil Imber said...

I find fault both ways here. First, it was stupid of Aviles to complain because the foul ball call had no effect on the outcome of either his AB, or the game.


Secondly, the game is over so why would Randazzo engage Aviles at all? Just continue walking off the field.

Gil Imber said...

I don't like the player or umpire behavior here. Be the bigger man, Mr. Randazzo, seriously. Don't even engage that charlatan behavior...

Gil Imber said...

And more importantly, HE BLEW THE CALL to begin with - whether or not it affected the outcome of the at bat.

Gil Imber said...

NO WAY is there fault both ways here. The player put up a very mild protest over a bad call when it happened.


If he gave the ump some lip again between innings, I could see tossing him; but when the game is over, to toss a player over getting some lip about a blown call? BS--umpires need to stay out of the fray when possible...that means not running toward the player's dugout right away--Randazzo could have been just about anywhere other than the direct line between the player and the dugout and the extra complaining doesn't need to happen. He knew this would draw a fine and his ego said he should fine that player. Seems like Randazzo needs a fine here for not controlling himself better--and I am on the ump's side.


As long as I'm ranting....what are the broadcasters thinking "he needs to get help on that foul ball"??? From 100 feet away, one of those guys should know better whether it tipped the bat or the glove? We saw/heard this thing three different ways. The sound doesn't convince me and the angle from the field doesn't convince me, either. It's not until you get a dugout view that you can see the tip off the glove. Any umps in the dugout???

Gil Imber said...

My main problem with the broadcasters here is not that they want them to get help (though I do think of that as an issue because if the situations were reversed and he DID go for help they'd be complaining about him doing so), it's that they want him to go for help because he got it wrong. They don't seem to realize that it is incredibly unlikely for an umpire to go for help because the call is wrong. Except in very rare instances an umpire doesn't see one thing but call another. Randazzo is not going to go for help "because he got it wrong" as he doesn't think he got it wrong.

Gil Imber said...

Also, the personal attacks on players are getting out of hand. Can a blog administrator PLEASE step in and start removing them?

Gil Imber said...

Procedure for umpires is to leave the field as soon as the game ends. They are not supposed to stand around and wait for a bit, they are to leave immediately.

Gil Imber said...

He was walking off the field as he is supposed to. He was not engaging anything.

Gil Imber said...

These sort of player-related comments make us all look bad. Please stop.

Gil Imber said...

Agreed. Though he is correct.

Gil Imber said...

Stop it, he most certainly was NOT. Angel went to confront the dugout, but all umpires seem to converge in front of the Cleveland (I refuse to use their team name) dugout as Mills and Francona were trying to get them to keep walking. Aviles AND Randazzo confronted each other. And that is not professional when you're an umpire. But that is MY OPINION. =-)

Gil Imber said...

Perhaps I misunderstood the part of the video you were referring to. Randazzo was heading directly from his position to the field exit. That is not an opinion, that is a fact that can be identified from the video. If you were, however, referring to the entire crew stopping their motion to go off the field, then yes that is a problem; they should have kept walking.

Gil Imber said...

Yes, agreed. And I am one of the few Yankee fans who admire Terry Francona (he is a great manager). I also like Mills. They are mild-mannered for the most part. The umpires should have vacated the premises after Francona and Mills asked them to keep walking. No one needs to have rabbit ears for the post-game. Let the ranters vent (within reason) and just get the hell outta dodge! =-)

Gil Imber said...

I have to ask where you got your moniker from? "BAPACop?" Beverly Area Planning Association? British Academy of Performing Arts? =_)

Gil Imber said...

When I was maybe 7 years old or somewhere around there I wanted to be a police officer. Dressed up as one for Halloween, and when my house got internet my username was BAPACop. I'm from Pennsylvania, so B-A-PA-Cop. Then I grew up and realized I am not nearly brave enough to be willing to get shot at, but I kept the username.

Gil Imber said...

The ejection was sound. But Randazzo doesn't have to engage Francona. He just has to keep walking. Even if he engages him to tell him that he's going to keep walking, it's moot. Nothing good can happen.

Gil Imber said...

Right, I had misunderstood what DD4D was referring to. I thought he was talking about the initial moment of ejection. I don't like either that they stopped before getting off the field.

Gil Imber said...

Pretty neat. I am in NY, not too far from PA's border (about an hour). I used to go to PA with friends when I was @ SUNY Binghamton (grain alcohol!). I could not be a cop or a firefighter. Two of the toughest jobs around ... for the guys that do it right.

Gil Imber said...

Sorry if I offended, but I will quote Ryan Braun "You can't change the truth!"

Gil Imber said...

To possibly quote Ryan Braun in the future: "Oh dear, I've just been suspended for a hundred games."

Gil Imber said...

Haha. As a person who personally feels that Randazzo was out of line in this situation, this shit was funny.


Kudos.

Gil Imber said...

Keep in mind that anything that makes the argument personal is an automatic ejection. If the player says, "We lost the game because you blew the call" that is subtly impugning the umpire's integrity and will result in an ejection.

Gil Imber said...

If you wish to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, might I suggest referring to umpires by their real names?

Gil Imber said...

You can suggest whatever you wish. You are also free to focus on the moniker, instead of the fact that this umpire made a donkey of himself after the ejection. Feel free to ignore the fact that the still shot on deadspin (the one with the umpire's gaping pie hole wide open) casts the umpiring profession in a negative light. Or the fact that this umpire got a sudden boost of courage as soon as Mills grabbed Aviles, with said courage increasing exponentially with the addition of another body between Aviles and him. Or the fact that he shows up for work overweight and slow, when the job (allegedly) requires one to be reasonably fit to get into/adjust to the appropriate position. Or the fact that this umpire just generally has a nasty attitude. Yes, let's set all that aside and focus on what really matters: "Randbozo."

Gil Imber said...

Randazzo's actions following the ejection have already been criticized by others, including me, in ways that do not resort to childish name-calling. You yourself have hit upon the very trap you are setting for yourself: Making funny little insults out of people's names is something elementary school bullies do. By doing so you are causing people to focus on the fact that you are acting childish and thereby ignore any of the other content of your post. So if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say instead of automatically forming a negative impression of you, I suggest you lay off the name-calling.

Gil Imber said...

Now you are suggesting to others to lay off the name calling, you constantly call people names in all of your stupid comments. An example would be calling someone a person who speaks "Engrish" in one of the comments on the Dan Iassogna ejection.

Gil Imber said...

First, that is not name-calling. Second, it is a fact that you mangled the English language in your post, so pointing that out by using a common slang term for brevity is not incorrect.

Post a Comment