Sunday, April 27, 2014

MLB Ejection 023: Tim Timmons (1; Joe Maddon)

HP Umpire Tim Timmons ejected Rays Manager Joe Maddon for arguing a check swing (ball) call by 3B Umpire Chris Segal in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Rays-White Sox game. With none out and none on, White Sox batter Adam Eaton attempted to check his swing on a 2-2 splitter from Rays pitcher Brandon Gomes. Replays indicate Eaton did not attempt to strike the pitch, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Rays were leading, 4-0. The Rays ultimately won the contest, 4-0.

This is Tim Timmons (95)'s first ejection of 2014.
Tim Timmons now has 6 points in the UEFL (3 Prev + 2 MLB + 1 Correct [Crewmate] = 6).
Tim Welke now has 6 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (5 Prev + 0 Correct = 6).

This is the 23rd ejection of the 2014 MLB Regular Season.
This is the 6th Manager ejection of 2014.
This is the Rays' 1st ejection of 2014, T-2nd in the AL East (NYY 2; BOS, TB, TOR 1; BAL 0).
This is Joe Maddon's first ejection since September 29, 2013 (Paul Schrieber; QOC = N).
This is Tim Timmons' first ejection since July 27, 2013 (David Ortiz; QOC = Y).

Wrap: Tampa Bay Rays vs. Chicago White Sox, 4/27/14
Video: Prolonged arguing leads to Maddon's premature departure (TB)


Gil Imber said...

Funny you would say that to anyone!

Gil Imber said...

And why would that be?

Gil Imber said...

Joe, I respect the Umpires like crazy and defend them on a regular basis. I just feel like Kellogg's incorrectly called pitch did have a realistic outcome on the at bat. I'm not saying Kellogg is a bad Umpire or anything like that, he is one of the best in the game and has worked 4 World Series. Missed pitches happen and he did miss a pitch in that at bat. If the appeal is denied I will not lose sleep over it and will respect the appeals board's decision.

Gil Imber said...

Why? The majority of posters on here have no idea how the game is played or called!

Gil Imber said...

In re E-021 Kellogg 1;

This appeal has been summarily denied by the UEFL Appellate Interpreter.

UEFL Rule 6-5-c-5 thoroughly specifies the language of "realistically resulted in a different outcome" and requires such consideration to be adjudged pursuant to a schedule, which includes, in part:
(d) NO (Defense) = 0-0, 0-1 ==> Called Ball, meaning that a 0-0 pitch improperly ruled a ball, as exists in E-021 Kellogg 1, shall not be considered to have "realistically resulted in a different outcome" of the at-bat, "given that such contributing pitch has preceded a decisive pitch (not necessarily consecutively)." The 0-0 pitch ruled ball one preceded the 3-2 pitch of the at-bat; with the criteria satisfied, Rule 6-5-c-5 precludes further deliberation.

Certiorari denied.

Post a Comment