tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post1031131446607087062..comments2024-01-18T06:49:55.117-08:00Comments on Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League: Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-21712814235590579272012-04-27T05:51:47.908-07:002012-04-27T05:51:47.908-07:00Absolutely not. Rules interpretation and applicati...Absolutely not. Rules interpretation and application are the only things that are protestable. This is a judgement call..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-27216342036854973162012-04-20T16:35:43.826-07:002012-04-20T16:35:43.826-07:00The Appeals Board runs off of a relative majority ...The Appeals Board runs off of a relative majority of fixed membership structure (as opposed to a simple or even absolute majority): Because the decision to defer is generally a last resort, the fixed membership specifically excludes abstained & deferred; a majority achieved within the confines of this fixed membership is sufficient for decision-making, which may create the false appearance of a plurality (such as with this decision). Conversely, deferment <i>does</i> invoke plurality.<br /><br />For instance, while this decision of 3-2-1 might appear to follow plurality, it does not. A decision of 2-1-2 (wherein two votes to overturn, one to confirm, two to defer) would result in an overturn. A decision of 2-2-2 or 2-2-1 would result in a casting vote, which generally would observe Speaker Denison's rule to vote in favor of the status quo (confirm). Because deferment exclusively invokes plurality, a decision of 1-2-3 or 2-2-3 would result in a deferred QOC (likely irrecusable).*<br /><br />*Vote count varies as Appeals Board members abstain due to conflict of interest (e.g., if I posted the original QOC, unless compelled to issue a casting vote), vacation, etc.<br /><br />Ergo, the majority opinion may be deemed a relative majority opinion, which holds the same weight as would an absolute majority opinion. And the minority will become the dissenting.<br /><br />ThanksLindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-44455328902670339052012-04-20T15:29:54.622-07:002012-04-20T15:29:54.622-07:00Just for future clarifications (and I cannot help ...Just for future clarifications (and I cannot help this considering I am in law school):<br /><br />When only half the Court agrees to something, the ruling of the Court of Appeals stands - a majority vote is required to change the Court of Appeals decision. If using this principal, and applying it to UEFL, the original call by Gil would stand because only 3 of the 6 Appeals Members voted to change the call.<br /><br />Also, "minority" is never used; rather, use "dissent" to clarify those who disagree with the majority or plurality opinion. (Pluralities are a whole other story I will refrain from discussing).<br /><br />Just thought I'd offer the insight. I personally agree with the Appeals Board and am pleased by the decision to overturn.Cricketnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-36749600170799180242012-04-18T13:03:27.341-07:002012-04-18T13:03:27.341-07:00Sure...Sure...Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-66146626922658215742012-04-18T12:52:50.069-07:002012-04-18T12:52:50.069-07:00In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "Th...In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "This is a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic....An incorrect mechanic is almost like getting a call right by dumb luck. In this case a misleading mechanic puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play... In any case it's my belief that from a mechanical standpoint you can not kill a play like that and change your mind it's as bad as calling a guy out on a catch in the outfield geting guys to go back to their bases and switching to a no catch call.."<br /><br />In writing for the minority, Albertaumpire opined, "[Scott] did not even know that his hands went that high as he was backing to get out of the way. Nor would he think he put his hands that high until seeing the video."<br /><br />Can we call them the Supreme Court Justices of umpiring?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-29923893475011784932012-04-18T08:28:59.611-07:002012-04-18T08:28:59.611-07:00Frankly, it's surprising that this blew over w...Frankly, it's surprising that this blew over with minimal media coverage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-78951152377154955892012-04-18T03:15:52.661-07:002012-04-18T03:15:52.661-07:00Anonymous said...
well, slow down Dale and get a ...Anonymous said... <br />well, slow down Dale and get a look - it's neither fair nor foul til you decide and getting the call absolutely right (in this case waiting that extra second before gesturing for the catcher to field the ball) is critical........players - you bear your own responsibilities: Run you jackasses - cause if it's fair there's gonna be at least two out and if it's foul there'll be no outs and you can return to the bases.......players identify themselves as liberal politicians for blaming someone else (in allowing the umpire to dictate the decision - run or not - they MUST MAKE FOR THEMSELVES)........correct or incorrect we've focused on the wrong set of characters (umpire v. manager rather than players v. themselves)<br /> <br /><br />Excellent Post!!!! Put your name on it. I betting you have pro ball expierence, who ever you are. Nice job again.Big Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059152139707572715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-71354960979600859002012-04-18T03:13:55.967-07:002012-04-18T03:13:55.967-07:00In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "Th...In writing for the majority, tmac opined, "This is a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic....<br /><br />2 good,spot on, kudos!Big Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10059152139707572715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-89053204755382780112012-04-17T18:23:43.737-07:002012-04-17T18:23:43.737-07:00Interesting point JPINFV, but by the end of the se...Interesting point JPINFV, but by the end of the season this may have been forgotten.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-61621504603162851762012-04-17T18:21:48.225-07:002012-04-17T18:21:48.225-07:00It will be interesting to see if the game has any ...It will be interesting to see if the game has any effect on the post season, either with the Dodgers making it or the Padres (hehe... who am I kidding with this one) not making it.JPINFVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-18057266327398923852012-04-17T16:53:27.502-07:002012-04-17T16:53:27.502-07:00Awesome! I love the fact that the appeals board de...Awesome! I love the fact that the appeals board decision gives the actual opinions behind the various votes. They both make sense, I love seeing that.Jimmy Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-54521111467320966292012-04-17T16:32:55.678-07:002012-04-17T16:32:55.678-07:00thanks for posting that, and great decision by the...thanks for posting that, and great decision by the appeals board!cyclone14noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-67147863190802528182012-04-17T14:45:24.064-07:002012-04-17T14:45:24.064-07:00Thanks Gil. Somewhat surprising if Scott has not c...Thanks Gil. Somewhat surprising if Scott has not commented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-22339204270958461612012-04-17T14:44:24.763-07:002012-04-17T14:44:24.763-07:00We have no statement from Scott himself, but we do...We have no statement from Scott himself, but we do have a <a href="http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/16/mlb-umpire-used-improper-mechanics/" rel="nofollow">statement from MLB's Peter Woodfork</a>, Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations:<br /><br />“After review and discussion with the umpire, we have determined that the call itself of a fair ball was correct. However, while making the call, there was an incorrect mechanic, which appeared to confuse San Diego’s base runners. At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field. After reviewing the entire situation following the game, the umpire realizes his hands were in an exaggerated upward appearance similar to a call that would indicate a dead ball. While we all agree that it was a fair ball that did not hit the batter, the umpire recognizes that the proper mechanic was not executed as he tried to avoid the catcher.”Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-36833974520201676402012-04-17T14:38:53.590-07:002012-04-17T14:38:53.590-07:00I'm glad (and a bit surprised) to see the over...I'm glad (and a bit surprised) to see the overturn, but does anyone have a quote from Dale Scott about what happened? He would be the one to know, after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-33481094775245575382012-04-17T11:55:44.982-07:002012-04-17T11:55:44.982-07:00well, slow down Dale and get a look - it's nei...well, slow down Dale and get a look - it's neither fair nor foul til you decide and getting the call absolutely right (in this case waiting that extra second before gesturing for the catcher to field the ball) is critical........players - you bear your own responsibilities: Run you jackasses - cause if it's fair there's gonna be at least two out and if it's foul there'll be no outs and you can return to the bases.......players identify themselves as liberal politicians for blaming someone else (in allowing the umpire to dictate the decision - run or not - they MUST MAKE FOR THEMSELVES)........correct or incorrect we've focused on the wrong set of characters (umpire v. manager rather than players v. themselves)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-88354485449735257682012-04-17T11:36:03.091-07:002012-04-17T11:36:03.091-07:00Agreed. Great decision.
Glad to see the process ...Agreed. Great decision.<br /><br />Glad to see the process work, and work to this end.Dave Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11774011275701482305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-86436627387946742422012-04-17T11:15:59.902-07:002012-04-17T11:15:59.902-07:00I'm glad we pleased at least one person! Let ...I'm glad we pleased at least one person! Let the debate continue!!tmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801025280017627526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-24970372610644221842012-04-17T11:10:42.607-07:002012-04-17T11:10:42.607-07:00Great decision by the Board.Great decision by the Board.JohnShulockFanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00141293832769585596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-84368601444000713762012-04-17T10:52:29.922-07:002012-04-17T10:52:29.922-07:00In re Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)
After review, ...<i>In re Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)</i><br /><br />After review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Correct" has been overturned in a 3-2-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected Overturn the original QOC, two elected to Confirm or Uphold the original QOC and one voted to defer the original ruling.<br /><br />During review, the Appeals Board found that while the play had been correctly adjudicated, the HP Umpire incorrectly signaled the ball dead, which confused the offensive team and its base runners.<br /><br />The Board rejected the argument that <a href="http://portal.closecallsports.com/uefl-rules" rel="nofollow">UEFL Rule 6-1-b-6-a</a> was applicable to a situation of false mechanics, allowing the circumstance of an incorrect mechanic resulting in the application of an incorrect Quality of Correctness.<br /><br />In writing for the majority, <b>tmac</b> opined, "This is a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic....An incorrect mechanic is almost like getting a call right by dumb luck. In this case a misleading mechanic puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play... In any case it's my belief that from a mechanical standpoint you can not kill a play like that and change your mind it's as bad as calling a guy out on a catch in the outfield geting guys to go back to their bases and switching to a no catch call.."<br /><br />In writing for the minority, <b>Albertaumpire</b> opined, "[Scott] did not even know that his hands went that high as he was backing to get out of the way. Nor would he think he put his hands that high until seeing the video."<br /><br />This ruling will hold limited precedent influence over future UEFL/QOC decisions in regards to mechanics and false or unclear signals.<br /><br />Overturned.<br /><br />Confirmed: <b>Albertaumpire</b><br />Upheld: <b>Jeremy</b><br />Overturned: <b>tmac</b>, <b>RichMSN</b>, <b>yawetag</b><br />Deferred: <b>BillMueller</b><br />Abstained: <b>Gil</b> (Posted original QOC of "Correct")<br /><br />Quality of Correctness has been overturned, 3-2-1.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-58414013612725040322012-04-17T10:02:01.189-07:002012-04-17T10:02:01.189-07:00It's very simple. He called it foul. He cannot...It's very simple. He called it foul. He cannot then change it to fair when the ball is already dead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-28986048836080674332012-04-17T09:59:32.649-07:002012-04-17T09:59:32.649-07:00My favorite number......9.01c. The boys got the c...My favorite number......9.01c. The boys got the call right. It was a fair ball, bad mechanic but that shouldn't penalize the Dodgers. Everyone is so worried about the Padres, someone is going to be unhappy. Better to get the call right, then try and sort out than be wrong and try and sort things out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-10581984797339534082012-04-17T08:44:44.671-07:002012-04-17T08:44:44.671-07:00@Penwhale: I suppose so, but if he has already kil...@Penwhale: I suppose so, but if he has already killed the play, what is there to deliberate about?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-66237886874427611042012-04-16T23:13:42.920-07:002012-04-16T23:13:42.920-07:00In this case - as calling the ball foul kills the ...In this case - as calling the ball foul kills the play, the "correct" thing to do is to let the play run and then come back to look at it later (that's what umpire deliberation is for).Penwhalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04863343643854741025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-54474035447987191552012-04-16T20:20:56.507-07:002012-04-16T20:20:56.507-07:00According to Umpchat, Lance Barrett gets his first...According to Umpchat, Lance Barrett gets his first big league toss, heaving Don Cooper. I will agree with Rusty, I have heard Hawk Harrelson complimentary of umps on a couple of occasions last year, Jim Reynolds in one game and Jeff Nelson in another. I believe it was the same game for Nelson where he tossed out Alexei Ramirez, though I think the eject came after Hawk's complimentary remarks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com