Saturday, July 21, 2012

Ejection 092: Mike Everitt (1)

HP Umpire Mike Everitt ejected Giants center fielder Angel Pagan for arguing a strike three call in the top of the 6th inning of the Giants-Phillies game. With none out and none on, Pagan took a 1-2 curveball from Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located thigh high and several inches inside (px value of -1.199), the call was incorrect.^ At the time of the ejection, the Giants were leading, 4-2. The Giants ultimately won the contest, 6-5.

This is Mike Everitt (57)'s first ejection of 2012.
Mike Everitt now has -2 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = -2).
Crew Chief Mike Everitt now has 0 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (0 Previous + 0 Incorrect = 0).
*Schrieber's MLB service (14 years) is longer than Everitt & Laz Diaz (13 years), yet Everitt is listed as -cc.
^After review, Quality of Correctness has been affirmed by the UEFL Appeals Board (6-0).

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 92nd ejection of 2012.
This is the 36th player ejection of 2012.
This is San Francisco's 2nd ejection of 2012, 3rd in the NL West (LAD 7; SD 3; SF 2; COL 1; AZ 0).
This is Angel Pagan's first career ejection.
This is Mike Everitt's first ejection since October 2, 2010 (Bruce Bochy; QOC = Correct).

Wrap: Giants at Phillies, 7/21/12
Video: Pagan takes 1-2 curve for strike three, is ejected by Everitt for arguing the call

Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball


Russ said...

Mike Everitt is considered the CC even though he has less experience than Schreiber. On CSN Chicago, it always denotes who the CC is when they show the Umpires and during the White Sox-Red Sox series this week it had Everitt as the CC.

SPballsandstrikes said...

I'm guessing it has to do with the fact he has been the number 2 man in the past years whereas Paul hasn't.

Anonymous said...

Is jerry meals out?

Anonymous said...

on the umpire list in the dugouts it usually shows it too (if there are any shots of that?) guess it would be everitt too- he has been acting CC a number of times this year already.

Anonymous said...

Everitt is the CC

Anonymous said...

Where is Bruce Dreckman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

It's a typo on meals should be in cause Timmy is working in tampa

UmpsRule said...

Let me be blunt. I would much rather that Everitt be the crew chief as opposed to Schreiber. Is there even a question who is the best option?

UmpsRule said...

The video:

Anonymous said...

"Crew Chief Paul Schrieber"

A scary combination of words

Anonymous said...

Paulie might have more time in, but Everitt has more quality time in. Good move on having Everitt lead the crew.

Anonymous said...

It's Everitt becuase you see him in the world series with guys like West, Demuth, Gorman and Davis, Jeff Nelson, not schriber no offense, touching mags still lingers, Im very surprised though that they been both in the league almost the same time i did not know that.

Anonymous said...

I like Everitt. Yes, he got the call wrong here, but he's been consistently good at his job

Anonymous said...

Paul Schrieber is NOT the Crew Chief. I will CHALLENGE this just so I don't ever see the words "Crew Chief Paul Schrieber" put together.

Anonymous said...

What the hell are you challenging? It says Everitt's the crew chief EVEN THOUGH Schrieber has a year on him?

Anonymous said...

Challenge. Let's think about this pitch. Hamels is a left handed pitcher throwing to a right handed batter and it is inside to the batter. The ball has to have crossed over the plate sometime during the pitch. The only question should be is if the pitch was between the midpoint of the shoulders and belt to the hallow of the knees.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

This is a great example of how pitch f/x is not accurate. There is no way that pitch didn't cross the strike zone. Absolutely no way!

Lindsay said...

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

Anonymous said...

Couple of comments here... If Pitch f/x is one-dimensional and the box is drawn at the front edge of home plate, then the spot indicated on the chart can NOT be accurate (as Anon 10:29 said). If you consider the trajectory of that pitch, if that spot were accurate, then the pitch would have ENDED up hitting the batter by the time it reached the catcher's mitt.

With that said, this pitch is a classic case of "catcher's influence"... which, by the way, IS taken into consideration by MLB in the final score evaluation of the HP umpire after each game. While this pitch may have indeed crossed the plate, the fact that the catcher let the ball get so deep and that the momentum took his glove in a down-ward motion, this pitch, AT THIS LEVEL, should have been ruled a ball. The reality is that if he did call this pitch a ball, he would have had little to no objection from the defensive team AND would have saved himself an EJ.

While some of you may disagree with this line of thinking, the reality (right or wrong) is that when the catcher "butchers" a pitch this badly, 99 times out of a 100, the pitch (at the collegiate & professional levels of baseball) will be called a ball...and rightfully so. I can guarentee you that when Mike Everitt reviews the DVD sitting on his chair after the game, he will be the 1st to tell you that he should have called this pitch a ball - REGARDLESS of where it crossed the plate or what any "pitch f/x or k-zone" box shows you.

Double Down for Donuts said...

That curve is very good. How can anyone other than the catcher and umpire REALLY tell in this instance? Watch how it is breaking as it crosses the plate. There is no way for us to tell with the given camera angle, in my opinion. I'm not so sure this is incorrect (as labeled). But like I said, it is REALLY difficult to tell.

nwsquid said...

I'd like to compliment the color commentator. After the discussion of it being a quick hook, the announcers circle back around and discuss the fact that something taboo must have been said. Nice little bit of education for the non-umpires watching the game.

Anonymous said...

One other thing - sorry to be so long winded on this... I love this website, however, challenging this call is really not relevant for this particular pitch. The reason being is that REGARDLESS of where that pitch crossed the plate or where technology shows it or even what the rule book says, this pitch should be called a ball and rightfully so. Sometimes, you just don't take the "sh!tty" end of the stick and unfortunately, thats what Everitt did in this situation. Technically speaking, he may have been correct in his ruling, but I'm NOT calling that pitch a strike and neither is anyone who works higher levels of baseball. Trust me when I say that if Everitt had to do it all over again, he would have called that a ball and probably noone even blinks an eye at the call.

Now for those of you who say "I don't care how the catcher catches it, if the pitch hits the strike zone as defined in the rule book, then the pitch should be called a strike" ... to that I say "With all due respect, while you may be right, I would rather not be your partner umpiring on the field with you". I'll get off my soap box now ;)

Lindsay said...

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

Per Curiam Opinion:
This Board has previously affirmed that unless clear, convincing and conclusive visual evidence indicates otherwise, Quality of Correctness in relation to the Kulpa and Miller Rules shall ordinarily be affirmed (Ejections 008, 009: Greg Gibson (1, 2); Ejection 015: Dan Bellino (1), Ejection 021: Tim Timmons (1), Ejection 042: Gary Cederstrom (1)).

Concurring Opinion, Jeremy:
Replays show the pitch was inside. Pitch had movement, but when it crossed the plate it was already inside. Pitch f/x has it significantly inside. Everitt is good, stays out of trouble, but he missed the pitch. Catcher didn't help him at all with the weird cross up catch, he lost sight of the inside corner and rung up Pagan. Confirming, pitch should have been ball, in.

Concurring Opinion, yawetag:
Because ["pitch f/x captures data from the plane at the front edge of home plate," ibid, Gil], if it were inside at the front of the plate and moving closer, there's no way it was over the plate at any point. I've confirmed the original ruling.

Concurring Opinion, Albertaumpire:
I confirm it as well based on both review of the call and the UEFL rules.

However, if I was on the plate in Mike's shoes, I am almost certain I too would have called that pitch a strike. I looked at it in slow-mo and it has all the characteristics in full speed to be a strike if called by a human and pfx zone.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

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

The Original Ruling has been affirmed unanimously, 6-0.

Anonymous said...

wow. Well done. 6 people voting, 6 people wrong.

AERAdmin said...

@Anon 8:33: wow. Well done. 1 person commenting, 1 person wrong.

See, I can play this game too. But I'll do one better than you and explain myself. As noted in yawetag's opinion, PitchFX tracks the ball as it crosses the front of home plate. Therefore the argument that it crossed over the plate at any point is invalid, as such an occurrence would require the ball to have been on the outside edge of the front of the plate, suddenly curve sharply left, enter the strike zone, then curve right again and end up outside. The pitch does not appear to do that.

Post a Comment