tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post4110703392104085940..comments2024-01-18T06:49:55.117-08:00Comments on Close Call Sports & Umpire Ejection Fantasy League: Ejection 087: Dale Scott (3)Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-4643876993624273962012-07-25T09:07:49.724-07:002012-07-25T09:07:49.724-07:00Very glad the Board fixed this egregious error.Very glad the Board fixed this egregious error.Cricketnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-8157775425394484872012-07-24T10:29:28.914-07:002012-07-24T10:29:28.914-07:00A sound decision, Mr. Imber!A sound decision, Mr. Imber!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-16201355583249345272012-07-24T02:15:33.424-07:002012-07-24T02:15:33.424-07:00After exhaustive review, the Original Ruling has b...After exhaustive review, the Original Ruling has been reversed in a 4-3-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. In the Board's exhaustive decision, four members elected to Overturn and three voted to Confirm the original Quality of Correctness.<br /><br />Specifically, the following Board member resolved his vote of "Defer" during the exhaustive review process:<br /><br /><b>Gil</b>:<br />After much consideration, I have elected to resolve my casting vote of "Defer" to a classification of "Overturn." The reasons for this are two-fold.<br /><br />First, the mission of the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League is to "objectively track and analyze umpire ejections and their corresponding calls, with great regard for the rules and spirit of the game." Upon review, it is quite apparent—as it was when this play was initially challenged—that after conferring, the umpires ultimately made the correct call. Pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-7, Quality of Correctness for post-consultation ejections "shall be adjudged as to whether the call after consultation is correct or incorrect." This fact has never been in doubt. In this regard, QOC shall be "correct."<br /><br />Second, <a href="http://www.closecallsports.com/2012/04/ejection-006-dale-scott.html" rel="nofollow">Appeal 02, Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)</a> established precedent that, "a caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic ... puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play." For the sake of this tenet, it is proper to associate the ejected manager with having been put in jeopardy or caused to have been ejected due to a previously improper call.<br /><br />However, <i>Dale Scott (1)</i> specifically made reference to an incorrect mechanic as opposed to an incorrect call. Furthermore, the incorrect mechanic in <i>Dale Scott (1)</i> was a "time" mechanic, designed to create a dead ball situation.<br /><br />In the present (Dale Scott (3)), it is apparent that Scott did not employ incorrect mechanics, as he properly gestured "out" when he believed the fly ball had been legally caught.<br /><br />Though his initial call was incorrect, Rule 6-2-b-7 clearly mitigates the crew conference and clearly demands that QOC for a post-consultation ejection be taken from the post-consultation call, rather than the initial call.<br /><br />Furthermore, I find that the precedent set forth in <i>Dale Scott (1)</i> relates to mechanics and not calls and thus does not apply to <i>Dale Scott (3)</i>; consequently, QOC must be "correct" under Rule 6-2-b-7, which requires a vote of "Overturn." <br /><br />I therefore resolve my vote of "Defer" and alter the record to read, "Overturn."<br /><br />Therefore, the Board reverses the Original Ruling.<br /><br />Confirmed: <b>Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire</b><br />Upheld: None<br />Overturned: <b>BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag, Gil (Casting Vote)</b><br />Deferred: None<br />Abstained: None<br /><br />The Original Ruling has been deferred, 4-3-0.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-31491384086396211442012-07-17T00:15:37.978-07:002012-07-17T00:15:37.978-07:00Yes, Reason for Ejection is what we call a "p...Yes, Reason for Ejection is what we call a "pseudo-points altering variable" (<a href="http://portal.closecallsports.com/uefl-rules" rel="nofollow">Rule 6-2-g</a>), meaning that it both is subject to challenge and may be constantly subject to review by the Commissioners throughout the season. The Board did consider that argument, but unanimously decided to award QOC of correct/incorrect.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-22891306092756205992012-07-16T20:04:52.504-07:002012-07-16T20:04:52.504-07:00Gil, can the Reason of Ejection be challenged? (I&...Gil, can the Reason of Ejection be challenged? (I'm not sure my challenge on that was looked at.)<br /><br />My reasoning was the fact that 9.02(c) requires the Umpire to eject, regardless of whether the original call was correct/incorrect.Penwhalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04863343643854741025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-10966162683147126152012-07-16T19:12:12.488-07:002012-07-16T19:12:12.488-07:00In this type of situation, I don't think it is...In this type of situation, I don't think it is fair to take away points from the umpire since the ultimate call was correct, but I also don't think it is fair to reward the umpire in the standings since the original incorrect call created the entire situation. <br /><br />Perhaps for the rules summit, a new QoC could be addressed where in this type of situation, there is no change in the standings whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-66119599240227633892012-07-16T18:36:44.708-07:002012-07-16T18:36:44.708-07:00Board should be:
Jeremy
Gil
TMac
UmpsRule
RichMSN...Board should be:<br />Jeremy <br />Gil<br />TMac<br />UmpsRule<br />RichMSN<br />Turducken <br />KickersRuleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-65201778842926074362012-07-16T15:19:26.309-07:002012-07-16T15:19:26.309-07:00Been saying this for weeks now, time to vote out A...Been saying this for weeks now, time to vote out AlbertaUmpire and BillMueller. If we could vote out the commissioners, I would. Only ones worth keeping are tmac and RichMSN. <br /><br />This one's brutal, folks.Boozienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-55746228093915296282012-07-16T14:12:10.826-07:002012-07-16T14:12:10.826-07:00Precedent can always be overruled...and this decis...Precedent can always be overruled...and this decision defies logic and UEFL Rules.<br /><br />I decidedly disagree.Cricketnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-38190856835557620552012-07-16T12:52:24.483-07:002012-07-16T12:52:24.483-07:00@ anon:
I think many of you are missing the point...@ anon:<br /><br />I think many of you are missing the point... I am not arguing that Prado would have been out... we have established precednet (rules for UEFL are a little different) that an incorrect call leading to an ejection should be determined as incorrect. on a professional level this is very in depth and complicated.... I raised the point in the discussions that let's say Miller had the EJ then the call could have been ruled correct. Remember the league (UEFL) and the rules are constantly evolving and not always in sync with MLB rules and this is one of the few times that is the case. See the ejection of Hannrahan earlier this year also. <br /><br />I would really also like to give Kudos to RichMSN who for every ejection really stimulates the mind with his thought provoking ideas and discussion. Some of you don't know many of us were nominated for this position and it often takes up a lot of time and this one certainly did!!!tmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801025280017627526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-89298834741021968612012-07-16T12:52:20.300-07:002012-07-16T12:52:20.300-07:00So let me get this straight, the board deferred th...So let me get this straight, the board deferred this so if no one changes their vote by August 31, QOC changes from incorrect to correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-21472257021713456762012-07-16T12:26:21.176-07:002012-07-16T12:26:21.176-07:00This is the first time all season I have disagreed...This is the first time all season I have disagreed with the appeals board but I strongly disagree here. How can you say Prado should have been out? That makes absolutely no sense. He was already on second when Scott called the catch so he clearly would have gotten there if the correct call was made. The crew gotogether and changed Scott's incorrect call to correct and placed Prado back at second where he ORIGINALLY WAS. I really don't know what the tag out of Prado has to do with anything. He was only retreating to first because of Scott's incorrect call. The end result of this play was absolutely correct. Terry Collins even admitted so in the post game interview. If a Manager admits the Umpires were right in the postgame that should really count for something. There has got to be a better way to break ties than have the original poster break it. Gil and Jeremy are just going to agree with each other no matter what so the correctness is already decided during a tie based on which commisioner voted which way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-10441185499863953152012-07-16T11:47:34.046-07:002012-07-16T11:47:34.046-07:00Appendix
Majority Opinion, Gil:
As for procedure,...<i>Appendix</i><br /><br />Majority Opinion, <b>Gil</b>:<br />As for procedure, <a href="http://portal.closecallsports.com/uefl-rules" rel="nofollow">UEFL Rule 6-4-b</a> grants this Board the power to defer, through which the initial variable is listed as inconclusive. By its very nature, a deadlock vote (3-3-1) is inconclusive and subjects this Appeal to Rule 7-1: "All unresolved classifications, which fall under the category of points-affecting variables, as in 6.b., shall be resolved and reverted to a probable classification, or the default if no probable classification can be made. Although unresolved/inconclusive classifications are subject to review and resolving and/or reversion at any time, such resolving and reversion must be made no later than the conclusion of the phase of the season, defined in Rule 2-1, during which the ejection occurred." Accordingly, Rule 2-1 specifies that phase iv—our current phase—concludes after all games have been played on August 31. If, during that time, any Appeals Board member reviews this play and changes their vote, the Appeal will be finalized as Affirmed or Overturned.<br /><br />If, however, no vote is changed during that period, Rule 7-1-b specifies: "In the instance of an exhaustive disputed or inconclusive Quality of Correctness, the Quality of Correctness shall revert to reflect the call made on the field as correct."<br /><br />Dissenting Opinion, <b>Jeremy</b>:<br />I am subscribing to the limited precedent that the Appeals Board established in Appeal 02, Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1). Although I disagreed initially with the ruling in that case, I will give deference to what the Appeals Board has decided. When an umpire makes an incorrect call on a play that isn't easily correctable, or a correction has ramifications, such as Dale Scott (1) or here on Dale Scott (3), the umpire should not be rewarded for his incorrect mechanics and original determination and call. That is exactly what tmac said in his opinion then. The incorrect call and mechanic put the offended team (team of the ejected person) at a disadvantage. R1 Prado was tagged off the bag, independently of having first base tagged, by F3 Ike Davis. At that moment, R1 Prado is out. Scott's incorrect mechanics and original ruling created cause for that. Dale Scott should not be rewarded for a correct call by our precedent. However, I believe the mechanics of one umpire of the crew work hand in hand with cremates. You live and die as a crew. You can make an incorrect call because your crewmate made an incorrect mechanic or call. So, for these reasons I believe as to the classification of the calling umpire be changed from Dale Scott to CB Bucknor, as the issue in question here to me is the tag on R1 Prado. R1 Prado was tagged off base (whether there was a catch or no catch) and that is an out. No exceptions. U1 CB Bucknor made the ruling of an out call on the tag on Prado. This was not Scott's call to make, this is Bucknor's call and it was the wrong call (even though it was due to Scott's faulty mechanics). The original QOC of incorrect should be confirmed, but the classification on Scott changed to secondary.<br /><br />Therefore, the Board defers the Original Ruling.<br /><br />Confirmed: <b>Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire</b><br />Upheld: None<br />Overturned: <b>BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag</b><br />Deferred: <b>Gil (Casting Vote)</b><br />Abstained: None<br /><br />The Original Ruling has been deferred, 3-3-1.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-36978877659156609712012-07-16T11:46:05.599-07:002012-07-16T11:46:05.599-07:00After review, the Original Ruling has been deferre...After review, the Original Ruling has been deferred in a 3-3-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected to Confirm the Original Ruling, three voted to Overturn it and one voted to Defer it.<br /><br />Per Curiam Opinion:<br />This Appeal has strong arguments for both affirmation and reversal. On the one, follows the spirit set forth in <i><a href="http://www.closecallsports.com/2012/04/ejection-006-dale-scott.html" rel="nofollow">Appeal 02, Ejection 006: Dale Scott (1)</a></i>, in which <b>tmac</b> opined, "A caused ejection due to an incorrect mechanic ... puts one team in jeopardy and may or may not alter the play." In his majority opinion, <b>tmac</b> additionally wrote, "It's as bad as calling a guy out on a catch in the outfield getting guys to go back to their bases and switching to a no catch call." As such, past precent suggests a QOC of incorrect.<br /><br />Alternately, Rule 6-2-b-7 states that QOC for an ejection that occurs after umpire consultation, "shall be adjudged as to whether the call after consultation is correct or incorrect." Though the runner was tagged while retreating to first base, independently of the first base bag being tagged, the Board recognizes the argument that had this play been correctly officiated prior to consultation, runners would have ended up exactly where they were placed after consultation.<br /><br />Rule 9.02(c), therefore, is a convincing argument.<br /><br />Plurality Opinion, <b>RichMSN</b>:<br />the end result was exactly what it would've been had Scott ruled correctly in the first place. To me, this was an incorrect call that became a correct call. And I'm really only interested in the end result. So I'm voting to overturn.<br /><br />Plurality Opinion, <b>yawetag</b>:<br />In my opinion, the play itself should be reviewed; if the final call by the umpires is the correct call AND runners are placed on bases they would have probably achieved, the end result is the CORRECT call. Alternatively, if the final call is incorrect OR runners were placed incorrectly, the call should be INCORRECT. In this situation, I think we all would agree that had the ORIGINAL call been correct, there would have been R1 and R2; therefore, the umpires huddling, changing the call, and placing the runners on first and second is the correct call; if they had called R1 out or placed him at 3B, then I would rule it incorrect.<br /><br />In other words, overturned calls that lead to an ejection require two questions: (1) Was the end call the correct call? and (2) Were runners placed on bases that, in our judgement, they would have achieved if the original call had been made correctly. In this situation, the answer to both is "yes." Therefore, I'm overturning the decision.<br /><br />Dissenting Opinion, <b>tmac</b>:<br />I am ruling this play as incorrect as if the correct call was made a visit would not have occurred and the result would have been no ejection. The cause of the ejection albeit from the other team was an original incorrect call they necesitated a conference and a reversal. I understand I may be in the minority but i believe this to be incorrect based on the interpretion and precedence.<br /><br />Therefore, the Board defers the Original Ruling.<br /><br />Confirmed: <b>Jeremy, tmac, Albertaumpire</b><br />Upheld: None<br />Overturned: <b>BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag</b><br />Deferred: <b>Gil</b> (Casting Vote)<br />Abstained: None<br /><br />The Original Ruling has been deferred, 3-3-1.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361341904305010488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-55011286755584123002012-07-16T10:52:13.707-07:002012-07-16T10:52:13.707-07:009.02(c) is pretty clear. Scott gave Collins plent...9.02(c) is pretty clear. Scott gave Collins plenty of rope. Eventually he had to go.RichMSNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384563269998106611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-83639732262529932772012-07-16T10:12:40.894-07:002012-07-16T10:12:40.894-07:00In most sports, the "inadvertant whistle"...In most sports, the "inadvertant whistle" stops everything. I think the "inadvertant out" needs to have the same effect in many baseball situations.<br />R1 ran to second, touched second, all heck broke loose.<br />In every conceivable situation where the umps get this right from the beginning, you have runners on 1 & 2 after the play. Why wouldn't we just take the umps bad call out of the equation and put runners on 1 & 2, call it a bad call--it was, they are human, they make "errors", it's rectified, move on.<br /><br />I'm a bit on the fence about the ejection. I think the ump deserves to hear about making a bad call. Not sure if TC was really over the top and needed to go here. I'd have to give him a little lee-way; but he was very animated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-12776834536269819932012-07-16T08:51:22.403-07:002012-07-16T08:51:22.403-07:009.02(c) and its application are quite persuasive t...9.02(c) and its application are quite persuasive to me. The crew got the call right in the end. I'm not sure it's going to be persuasive to enough people, though.<br /><br />What I think is sad is that people in this thread are bashing Scott and his crew for doing what most people say umpires don't do enough of -- manning up, admitting the initial call was wrong, and reversing themselves and putting things the way they would've been had the call been made correctly in the first place.<br /><br />Collins had no reason to get run. Sounds like he went out there KNOWING that the ball had hit the ground. So what's he arguing, then?<br /><br />I'd love to see instant replay if only to watch people like Collins argue with a television monitor.RichMSNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384563269998106611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-26387346889793921252012-07-15T22:46:50.132-07:002012-07-15T22:46:50.132-07:00I swear, take a few days off, and look what you mi...I swear, take a few days off, and look what you miss.<br /><br />Had I been able to read this in time, I would have challenged. The post-conference call is completely correct. Collins argued because every manager argues every call that is changed against their team. Remember, managers only want umpires to conference when it will help them<br /><br />As for Dale Scott, nobody gets every call right. Nobody. That's why conferences exist, that's why 9.02(c) exists. To fix inevitable mistakes. So lose the whole 'if he got it right the first time' crap. That's probably what got Collins run.Jon Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536926849992961224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-66867219647068112292012-07-15T13:02:29.293-07:002012-07-15T13:02:29.293-07:00@Anon 12:58: It's hard to tell off a TV broadc...@Anon 12:58: It's hard to tell off a TV broadcast whether a plate umpire is being inconsistent or not, since most announcers will only bother to check on the close pitches that didn't go their team's way and TV cameras are generally not positioned to give a perfect view of the strike zone.<br /><br />As for the time out, a lot of plate umpires give late time outs, but I take it from the comments that this was later than most. I'd like to see a video of the time out if possible.AERAdminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359811610564661308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-22793547631619101712012-07-15T12:58:37.481-07:002012-07-15T12:58:37.481-07:00Watching it on TV. He's been inconsistent, plu...Watching it on TV. He's been inconsistent, plus the time out call in the middle of the at-bat that caused Warthen's ejection was as much of a reason that he got run than anything that would show up on the chart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-77622866345263562592012-07-15T12:49:07.241-07:002012-07-15T12:49:07.241-07:00@Anon 12:05, 12:25: Either of you bother to look a...@Anon 12:05, 12:25: Either of you bother to look at his chart before saying he's having a bad day? I haven't checked it myself, so I'm not going to put forward an opinion on his performance.AERAdminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359811610564661308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-82610414509218653932012-07-15T12:25:41.953-07:002012-07-15T12:25:41.953-07:00There are bad days at the plate, and then there is...There are bad days at the plate, and then there is the day he is having. But that's okay, he's good on the bases ... oh wait!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-671962394989069702012-07-15T12:13:25.256-07:002012-07-15T12:13:25.256-07:00CB is easily the worst ump in the league right now...CB is easily the worst ump in the league right nowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-50720604502238648172012-07-15T12:12:24.962-07:002012-07-15T12:12:24.962-07:00Bucknor made a bad call giving Bourn time out when...Bucknor made a bad call giving Bourn time out when Santana was already in his warm-up, which the Mets were already upset about. Add in the close call which goes against the team, and someone was bound to get tossed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4917712291092871273.post-24043496780827628122012-07-15T12:05:46.155-07:002012-07-15T12:05:46.155-07:00Bucknor just ran Dan Warthen, having an awful day ...Bucknor just ran Dan Warthen, having an awful day behind the plateAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com