Sunday, September 1, 2013

MLB Ejection 152: Dana DeMuth (2; Robin Ventura)

2B Umpire Dana DeMuth ejected White Sox Manager Robin Ventura for arguing a no catch (safe) call by 3B Umpire Paul Nauert in the bottom of the 4th inning of the White Sox-Red Sox game. With one out and one on,
F5 lunges toward 3B as the baseball bounces.
Red Sox batter Dustin Pedroia hit a 2-0 changeup from White Sox picher Charlie Leesman to third baseman Conor Gillaspie, who attempted to catch the line drive and tag third base in advance of the retreating Red Sox baserunner R3 Jacoby Ellsbury. Replays indicate Gillaspie received the batted ball into his glove, but did not demonstrate secure possession nor intentional and voluntary release pursuant to OBR Rule 2.00 (Catch); Gillaspie did not appear to "come up" with the ball after falling to the ground during the catch attempt pursuant to the MLB Umpire Manual #7-3, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Red Sox were leading, 6-4. The Red Sox ultimately won the contest, 7-6.

This is Dana DeMuth (32)'s second ejection of 2013.
Dana DeMuth now has 5 points in the UEFL (2 Previous + 2 MLB + 1 Correct Call [Crewmate] = 5).
Crew Chief Dana DeMuth now has 10 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (9 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 10).
*Rule 2.00 (Catch) states, in part, "A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it...In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional." The officially adopted MLBUM rule interpretation additionally states, "If a fielder gets a hand or hands on the ball and falls down in the attempt, a fielder must 'come up' with the ball to be ruled a catch."

This is the 152nd ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 74th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the White Sox's 6th ejection of 2013, T-2nd in the AL Central (DET 8; CLE, CWS 6; KC, MIN 3).
This is Robin Ventura's 3rd ejection of 2013 and first since August 23 (Greg Gibson; QOC = Correct).
This is Dana DeMuth's first ejection since July 23, 2013 (Dale Sveum; QOC = Correct)

36 comments :

Gil Imber said...

I was watching this live on the Red Sox feed, and I thought that when Nauert made the drop call on the catch, that the Sox third base coach physically pushed Ellsbury in the direction of home. I couldn't tell, though, because they didn't show that particular replay a second time. Anyone else see that? Or not?

Gil Imber said...

Scratch that -- got another look at the replay. No touching at all.

Gil Imber said...

Nauert made the correct call. Next year when they when they challenge a play like this on replay it will be upheld and they will blame the umpires for not knowing rules and not changing the call on purpose and all that bs.

Gil Imber said...

I love how the announcers said it would be overturn next year These mlb annoucers are an embarrassment as far as i can tell.

Gil Imber said...

Its the CWS feed... what do you expect?

Gil Imber said...

Its not just white sox its many of them really need to stop putting there foot in there mouth.

Gil Imber said...

Not going to happen and you know it.

Gil Imber said...

I am by no means, a fan of Paul Nauert. However, this is a fine call and absolutely correct. True it was a very good grab by F5 but the fact of the matter is that he never demonstrated firm possession of the ball and it fell out of his glove involuntarily.

No catch, no tag, no double play, and all the White Sox have to show for it is another Ventura ejection and another loss.

Gil Imber said...

Can someone explain voluntary release to me? Seems very subjective.



And no, not SoftballUmpire.

Gil Imber said...

Very simply, a player must maintain secure possession of the ball AND show voluntary release for it to be considered a catch. Voluntary release is just as it sounds, its the act of a player who releases the ball of his own volition, such as to transfer the ball to his throwing hand. In this case, there wasn't anything close to voluntary release. His throwing hand was underneath his body and he was lunging to to tag the base when the ball popped out. In my opinion, had the ball come out as he made contact with the base then I think you have a little bit of a different situation. It's pretty clear to me that his initial contact with the ground caused the ball to pop out. No secure possession and no voluntary release. Not a catch.

Gil Imber said...

I thought he had the catch, and the ball came out when he flicked his wrist while going for the bad. Usually if the announcers on the opposing team agree (NESN), there is a good chance it was a missed call.

Gil Imber said...

Usually when the announcers agree they are talking about a judgement call (usually a safe/out at a base where no rule knowledge is required. In this case they agree because Hawk is an idiot homer and the NESN guys simply don't know the rule.

This is nothing close to a voluntary release. And if the NESN guys had known the rule they wouldn't have agreed with Harrelson.

Gil Imber said...

And likely a fine/suspension for Ventura due to the bump following the ejection. That wasn't a smart move.

Gil Imber said...

it wasn't a voluntary release, but he had control when he hit the ground. It was something after the catch that cause him to lose control, and not the process of the completion of the catch itself.

Gil Imber said...

Unfortunately you have a mistaken understanding of what a catch is. Rule 2.00 defines what a catch is and it says in part, "... In establishing the validity of the catch the Fielder Shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete Control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional..."

Your comment about the "completion of the catch" demonstrates a misunderstanding of when a catch is completed, which in this case never occurred.

Gil Imber said...

obviously we are going to disagree on this, and thats why its a 'judgement call.' Would you say that it would be a no catch if the left fielder catches a ball to end the inning, and runs back towards the dugout. As he enters the infield he trips over third base, and loses the ball?

Gil Imber said...

This isn't a judgement call, it is rule application.

I don't understand how you can read the applicable rule, which happens to elaborate upon the exact situation happening on the field and yet think it segow doesn't apply to this situation.

Gil Imber said...

control of a catch is a judgement call

Gil Imber said...

Is anyone else confused to why Nauert didn't take this argument and him have the ejection?? Because in my opinion, asan umpire, thats my call and that should be my ejection. He is a regular MLB umpire, and his crew chief has to come in and take care of him.

Gil Imber said...

Since we are into football season, think of it in terms of catching a football. He could have possession originally, but he must control it all the way through the catch and then make a "football" move. In this case, he did not.

for the purpose of the rule, he must demonstrate that he has BOTH secure possession AND voluntary release. He had secure possession BUT NOT voluntary release.

Thus, no catch...

Gil Imber said...

If the player falls down (his lunge action was part of his fall) and drops the ball it is, by definition, NOT a catch. If he had secure possession the ball would have not left his glove. And by the way, completion of a catch requires both secure possession AND voluntary release...in this case there was neither, but even you admitted there was not voluntary release.

Gil Imber said...

Apples and Oranges

Gil Imber said...

If you've seen Nauert over the years, you can tell he is not a fan of ejections. DeMuth probably came over to break up the argument and keep the game moving. Ventura likely either said the magic word(s), or just spent too much time arguing, and DeMuth ejected him to keep the game moving.

Gil Imber said...

You're out of your element, Donnie

Gil Imber said...

No need to have an attitude it can change if people voice there displeasure with people.

Gil Imber said...

Why Ron why couldn't i answer it? you think just cause its "softball" its not the right answer? wrong

Gil Imber said...

Because your comments are unintelligent.

Gil Imber said...

Must be a thrill as a CC to see you've got Nauert on your crew. Great umpire but notoriously doesn't handle his business.

Gil Imber said...

How so? why don't you prove yourself instead of proving it. You haven't proven anything.

Gil Imber said...

Correct call by Nauert. Good "keep the game moving" EJ by Dana. But I don't see this as a bump.

Gil Imber said...

Yes I know that. As a CC I'm going to get after Nauert. That conversation can't take that long!! I'm an umpire, and I don't have a CC. I have to handle my own. He needs to take control, tell him I told you what I have and why. Then if he continues he will be ejected. There's a thing in the umpire manuel, "refusal to stop arguing." i think more guys need to enforce that. The game has to go on. It's not changing my call

Gil Imber said...

While I think it wasn't intentional (it looks like they both turned and stepped the same direction), baseball is, quite rightly, pretty touchy about any umpire contact that occurs during an argument.

Gil Imber said...

I'm really confused here. Are there some that are saying the release was voluntary? He only released the ball by dropping it out of his glove trying to make a play that failed as a result of the drop...Don't we have to assume he didn't have control? Why on earth would he intentionally drop that ball?? He didn't have control, i.e., no control, no catch. That's not really a judgement call because, again, he did not voluntarily remove the ball from his glove--it dropped.

Gil Imber said...

Nauert is a solid umpire. He is nearly always transparent to the game, which is exactly what a lot of sports officials are looking to accomplish. He has a very unique approach to situation handling, which I believe is appropriate. MLB needs its umpires to have varying personalities and approaches to the game. It works for him. Let's remember that he completely NAILED this play, and that DeMuth didn't really allow him the time to "take care of business" if he had needed to.

I for one don't care to see him toss anybody out, 'cause his ejection mechanic is pretty silly looking to me. ;)

Gil Imber said...

Because your comments generally do not provoke thought. [Four word sentence]...[Four word sentence]...The umpire's always right. Generally grammatically incorrect, as well.



You posted probably the best thing that I have read on this website: ... [something along the lines of] "If the umpire calls him out, he's out." ... Uh, not when the video shows you otherwise.



Good job, good effort.

Gil Imber said...

Excuse me bill? you know people are not perfect? this the rudest crap i have dealt with on here. I have a disabalitiy but you seem to think you can call me out on anything without thinking for once in your life your a rude ignorant asshole grow up. I am sick and tired of being criticizes for trying help. yet i can't spell so well i can't help that Its not my fault but yes when the umpire makes the call he is right get over it. It not going to change. You wonder why i can't stand people you judge someone you should be ashamed of yourself. Btw its not hard to copy and paste the damn rule either.

Post a Comment