Saturday, June 23, 2012

Ejection 075: Tony Randazzo (1)

HP Umpire Tony Randazzo ejected A's center fielder Coco Crisp for arguing a strike call in the bottom of the 6th inning of the Giants-A's game. With one out and none on, A's batter Coco Crisp took a 3-2 slider from Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarner for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located thigh high and over the outside corner of the plate (px value of 0.877), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Giants were leading, 6-4.The Giants ultimately won the contest, 9-8.

This is Tony Randazzo (11)'s first ejection of 2012.
Tony Randazzo now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Crew Chief Brian Gorman now has 3 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (2 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 3).
*After review, Quality of Correctness has been affirmed in a 6-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board.
*Historical UEFL Appeals Board decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.*

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 75th ejection of 2012.
This is the 29th player ejection of 2012.
This is the A's' 4th ejection of 2012 (first non-Bob Melvin ejection for the A's), 1st in the AL West.
This is Coco Crisp's first ejection since 2010 (Bob Davidson; QOC = Incorrect).
This is Tony Randazzo's first ejection since June 4, 2011 (Jason Varitek and Jonathan Papelbon; QOC = Correct).

Wrap: Giants at A's 6/23/12
Video: Crisp is ejected by Randazzo for arguing strike three call (11:10)

Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball


UmpsRule said...

Based on Retrosheet data, this is the sixth ejection of Crisp's career.

Anonymous said...

@umpsrule retrosheet data is not always right. though its a very accurate website some times it is 100% correct right for example it says bobby cox has been ejected 159 times when its really 158

Steven said...

If he balled pitch 3...I can see why Crisp would be mad at pitch 6. of course that is without seeing both pitches and how they came in.

Need the consistency.

Anonymous said...

Crisp is having a sub-par year and even though he's been heating up as of late he's now barely a .200 hitter. This accounts for much of his frustration, but really this EJ stems from when Vanover rang him up last night on a border line pitch (looked worse than today's by Randazzo which looked like a strike). Added that the A's blew the lead in the 9th yesterday and in the bottom half Vanover called a letter high strike on a different A's player which changed the course of that key at bat (replays showed Crisp screaming at Vanover from the dugout) I'm not really surprised what happened today. I usually think it's pointless to argue, but after the last couple days of being on the short end of some close calls I can understand why he popped off. Of course it didn't do him any good.

Adam said...

Challenge...based upon your 'Elastic Clause'. There is absolutely no weight put on 'consistancy' of a called strike zone. I propose that, at least at the same at bat, that two or more called pitches in close proximity, when differing calls are made, that weight be given to the consistancy of such calls. For instance this ejection. Pitches 2,3, and 6 here. Pitch 2. Called Strike. Ok, great, no problems. Pitch 3. Nearly identical height but further away from the plate. Called Ball. Ok, we have now established the outside edge of the zone. Pitch 6. Higher, but even further from the plate. Called Strike. WHAT!!! No wonder why Crisp blew. Yet because it's 'borderline' and the previous called ball was not against Crisp, the umpire is QoC is deemed correct. According to the current rules. Something isn't right...

Under the rules as is. A batter than take 3 straight called balls 'borderline' or 'always strike' all in the same place, then have 3 straight pitches same vicinity yet just a tad further from the plate but still 'borderline' or even 'always strike', and the umpire's QoC is 'correct'. Just because the 3 previous called balls were not against the batter. Isn't right and it needs corrected. Sooner rather than later.

Lindsay said...

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

Anonymous said...

He missed pitch 3, but does not mean he should miss pitch 6 for consistency sake. One pitch does not make for consistency. And the fact pitch 6 is higher does matter, because typically (according to both actual data and anecdotally) umpires are less liberal on the corners than the middle parts of the zone (horizontal and vertical).

You might be able to argue consistency if we looked at all of this batters at bats or this umpires entire game UP to this point.

Anonymous said...

This is the worst challenge in this site's history.

Will said...

@ 11:53
Great thoughts, early in my career I would let an early mistake change my zone - as in "I called that pitch a ball last inning - so it must be a ball this inning". After years of work you realize the mistake of trying to correct a mistake by making it the new "right call". The strike zone is the strike zone and you have to suck up when you make a mistake and come right back to calling the best strike zone you can...

Jon Terry said...

Um, yeah. Regardless of what has been called before, that pitch is a strike. Just ridiculous.

RichMSN said...

Some challenges are difficult to rule on. And then there are ones like this...

Anonymous said...

"This is the worst challenge in this site's history."
I laughed out loud. Still chuckling.

Sometimes you miss one. You might even wish you could have it back. You can't. You move on.

Anonymous said...

I think MLB has a worst play in the history of the game on average once every three months. They also have a best play ever every few weeks.

Lindsay said...

After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a 6-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Six Appeals Board members elected to Confirm the Original Ruling.

Per Curiam Opinion:
The Original Ruling in 075: Tony Randazzo (1) specified a Quality of Correctness of Correct.

The Board defers to UEFL Rule 6-5-c, which stipulates that Quality of Correctness only applies to "any pitch during [a single at-bat], provided that call was against the ejected person (or his team) and this call realistically resulted in a different outcome of the at-bat."

The Board finds that no calls during the at-bat in question satisfied this critereon: No call "was against the ejected person (or his team)." The consistency argument therefore is inadmissable.

Concurring Opinion, yawetag:
I upheld it simply on the premise that the ejection was based on the called strike. If we want to add consistency into the matter, it should be brought up between seasons, not during a season while appealing an ejection that might have to do with consistency.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: Gil, tmac, Albertaumpire, BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag
Upheld: None
Overturned: None
Deferred: None
Abstained: Jeremy (Posted Original Ruling)

Quality of Correctness has been affirmed, 6-0.

Post a Comment