Thursday, July 25, 2013

MLB Ejection 103: Chad Fairchild (6; Fredi Gonzalez)

3B Umpire Chad Fairchild ejected Braves Manager Fredi Gonzalez for arguing a live ball (dead ball no-call) in the bottom of the 6th inning of the Braves-Mets game. With none out and one on, Mets batter David Wright hit
Fairchild ejects Fredi, Kellogg not amused.
a triple on a bounce to deep left center. Replays indicate after the ball bounced on the warning track, the ball bounced over the top of the outfield wall and touched the railing in dead ball territory, the call was incorrect. At the time of the ejection, the Mets were leading, 6-4. The Mets ultimately won the contest, 7-4.*

This is Chad Fairchild (75)'s sixth ejection of 2013.
Chad Fairchild now has 15 points in the UEFL (17 + 2 + -4 = 15).
Crew Chief Jeff Kellogg now has 7 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (7 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 7).
*A bounding double situation is not eligible for instant replay review, pursuant to Replay Rules governing boundary calls concerning HR/Not HR.

This is the 103rd ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 49th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Braves' 6th ejection of 2013, 1st in the NL East (ATL 6; WAS 5; NYM 4; MIA, PHI 2).
This is Fredi Gonzalez's 3rd ejection of 2013 and first since July 5, 2013 (Angel Hernandez; QOC = Y).
This is Chad Fairchild's first ejection since July 20, 2013 (Jayson Werth; QOC = Y).

Wrap: Atlanta Braves vs. New York Mets, 7/25/13
Video: Wright drives a deep fly ball to left center, resulting in an RBI triple after ball ruled in play (NYM)
Video: Gonzalez is ejected appealing to Fairchild, Kellogg after Reed Johnson stopped playing (ATL)

20 comments :

Gil Imber said...

Ironic, sort of, that it's Fredi's first ejection since being tossed by Angel Hernandez, who tossed Bob Melvin over a ball that clearly hit over the top the outfield wall and the call was wrong.


That said, I can't believe Fairchild refused to get help from U2 and/or had the crew call for a conference.

Gil Imber said...

I think the argument is over whether or not that fence is in dead ball territory, not on where the ball hit, which would explain why they went straight to the crew chief instead of a conference.

Gil Imber said...

I wish parks would stop building walls like this. If it goes over the wall it's out of play, if it doesn't it's in play. Would save an awful lot of trouble.

Gil Imber said...

Can you protest for improper application of the ground rules? If so, I'm surprised Fredi didn't. Likewise, I'm surprised Chad didn't ask for help on this one. Even if he's hustling out there, it's pretty far away, you've got an immediate player reaction saying "out of play," and you can't review it on video. Why put up a fight about it? If he was unsure, he did the right thing by leaving it in play, but you'd think he'd conference after if that was the case. Very odd. It's not clear to me from the video what exactly the argument was about (in or out of play vs. getting help), so I'm hoping there will be some post-game comments that will clear it up.

Gil Imber said...

Could be. Braves' studio announcers detailed the play during the post-game and mentioned that Fairchild's call and not going to a conference (at least) was arrogant on his end.

Gil Imber said...

I can't read lips so I'm just guessing based on actions, but it looks like the only conference Gonzalez asks for is with Kellogg and he gets it.

Gil Imber said...

Could not agree with you more. I was at a camp with Vic Voltaggio and he was complaining about the same thing.

Gil Imber said...

If he did protest this, it would be denied likely since that was a judgment call.

Gil Imber said...

It may be judgment or it may be misapplication of the ground rules. If the call was that it never hit above the orange line, that's judgment and, I agree, the appeal would be denied. But if the call was that it hit the black railing behind the fence and the black railing is in play (which it isn't), that's not judgment. That's a misapplication of the ground rules. I just don't know whether that is a protestable offense.

Gil Imber said...

U2 was in the infield.


The giveaway for U3 should have been the bounce off the wall. A ball does not bounce that way coming off of the wall.

Gil Imber said...

That's because they built Citi Field with fences that were too deep. When it first opened, that area went about 12 feet deeper and had a 16 foot-high fence (The Great Wall of Flushing). When they moved the fences in two years ago, that's how they redesigned it.



Not sure what's contained in the video clip, because I was watching the game on the TV at the time. But as Gonzalez went back toward the dugout, someone must have told him what the replay revealed, so he went back out to talk with Fairchild. You could clearly read his lips asking ``Why can't you go look at it?''


It's quite dumb that the replay rule covers balls that land over the fence, but not balls that bounce over the fence. But at least it will be fixed for next year....

Gil Imber said...

Granted, it has been awhile, but if I recall correctly: this *can* be protested. A misapplication of the ground rules would be treated as a misapplication of the rules. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Gil Imber said...

Um...no. Misapplication of ground rules is not judgment. The question was whether Fredi could protest IF the discussion was over the ground rules. If the discussion was over what the ball hit (with an understanding that the railing was in dead ball area), then there could be no protest.

Protests aren't denied because of judgment calls, because those protests are never recognized as legitimate. Protests are recognized when a RULE INTERPRETATION or APPLICATION is challenged.

I would be led to believe that the argument was over what the ball hit, because I'm suspicious that Fredi would have protested otherwise (unless I'm incorrect and you're not allowed to protest misapplication of ground rules).

Gil Imber said...

I'm no longer so sure it was over the ground rule, since apparently the crew called a HR off that fence earlier in the game, meaning they had the ground rule correct and implying this was just a judgement call.

Gil Imber said...

It's too bad that this is the second type of play like this that has resulted in a manager ejection after the officiating crew made an error. Players did everything right. Argument (and ejection) were inevitable.

Gil Imber said...

I agree, I have to think if it was over the ground rule, this would have ended in a protest (assuming that's an option, which I feel like it would have to be...). Personally, I find it odd that Fairchild didn't ask for any help on this, for the reasons I listed above. I know everyone has their own job to do out there, but this wasn't a safe/out right in front of him, it was probably 150 feet away. Handling it this way doesn't do anyone any favors. Haven't seen any post-game comments about it. Oh well.

Gil Imber said...

Kellogg declined comment. Gonzalez seemed to suggest it was an easy call.

Gil Imber said...

Either way, the fact that they created the replay rule to cover balls that land over the fence but not balls that bounce over the fence was not well thought out by the powers-that-be.

Gil Imber said...

Aside from Fairchild blowing the call, the big mistake here was that Johnson tried to be the umpire. The Braves announcers were absolutely correct in criticizing him for giving up. If he plays that ball off of the wall/railing, he holds Wright to a double and Murphy doesn't score.

Gil Imber said...

love freddie's comments to fairchild- 'what are you doing here chad? get your ass over there!'...boom!

Post a Comment