Elbow of Kiermaier and Obviously Malicious Interference

As Crew Chief Tom Hallion ruled runner Kevin Kiermaier out following a Replay Review in Tampa Bay after a collision with Red Sox fielder Enrique Hernandez, resulting in 2B Umpire Mark Ripperger's interference no-call, Boston manager Alex Cora emerged to seek an explanation for the decision, appearing satisfied with the outcome.

The question we were asked is why was Kiermaier not ruled out for interference after appearing to knock the baseball out of Hernandez's glove during a tag attempt.

To guide us through Rule 6.01(a) regarding interference, we turn directly to the MLB Umpire Manual, which states, "While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act—such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.—to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well."

The MLBUM interp starts with a very key phrase—"contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt"—and continues with the bread and butter of this rule: "obviously malicious and unsportsmanlike act."

Gil's Call: Whether malicious, unsportsmanlike, intentional, or willful/deliberate, all of these acts describe a similar non-baseball play. In order to determine whether such malfeasance occurred, I generally look for three elements, borrowed from basketball. Your mileage may vary.

Windup: Did the potential offender indicate a pre-contact intent or premeditation to commit such an act?

Impact: Did contact actually occur or, in the absence of contact, was the defense actually impeded?

Follow-Through: Did the offensive player complete the illegal act, even after contact terminated?

For the Kiermaier play, much is made about the runner's right elbow or "chicken wing" in the aftermath of contact with Hernandez, but I see this as a reaction to his contact with Hernandez. Sure, there may have been a moment during the contact in which Kiermaier threw his arm upward, but I don't see the requisite pre-contact preparatory act that would otherwise suggest an intentional and obviously malicious act.

I compare and contrast this play with Yankees batter-runner Alex Rodriguez's interaction with Red Sox pitcher Bronson Arroyo during a tag attempt in Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series, originally no-called by 1B Umpire Randy Marsh and eventually reversed to interference after crew consultation with, amongst others, the umpire most likely to have seen the offending act, HP Umpire Joe West.

In the A-Rod scenario, the offending player clearly and obviously winds up with his left arm, turns his head to look at the fielder, swings downward at Arroyo's glove, and intentionally slaps the ball out of the glove with his hand, following through with his arm swing.

Thus, Kiermaier's after-the-fact elbow, for me, isn't adequate to suggest what may have happened before. In my estimation, this ex post facto event is inadmissible relative to what occurred prior to the dropped ball when Kiermaier and Hernandez made legally permissable contact as Kiermaier ran from first to second base after Hernandez had already fielded the batted ball and had moved on to a tag attempt.

In my estimation (as well as, apparently, 2B Umpire Ripperger's estimation, as well), if the rule/interpretation seeks something to be obvious, a 50-50 call likely will err on the side of the alleged misconduct having not occurred, for lack of it being obvious.

What does "obviously malicious" mean to you? Video as follows:

Analysis of Texas Softball Umpires' Foul Ball Confusion

Today's Ask the UEFL concerns a softball video many of you sent in from Texas in which umpires appeared to allow the offense to run the bases and score runs during a foul ball wide of third base, an ensuing overthrow intended for the pitcher, and a ball thrown onto the field from the stands.

The Play: With runners on first and third base, the batter hits a ground ball to the outside of third base—a foul ball. The left fielder retrieves the ball and throws to an infielder, whose throw back to the pitcher goes wild as a second ball is thrown onto the field, seemingly from the stands. The offensive team runs the bases on the overthrow, with both runners and the batter coming around to touch home plate.

Aftermath: The umpires confer and, although the video ends before the final resolution is given, the offensive team's reaction suggests the umpires rendered a ruling in which run(s) were permitted to score.

Analysis: First and foremost, softball or baseball, the ball is dead on a foul ball and during a dead ball, no bases may be run, as in Official Baseball Rule 5.06(c) [similar NCAA softball rule is 6.9.5]: "While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow, interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field)."

As this game was a high school affair between Jefferson High School and Ysleta High, the relevant NFHS rule is 5-2-2-b ("a runner may not advance").

Gil's Call: I am known in the officiating world as what's called an over-communicator: I am of the mindset that mechanics are made to be used and I might give signals that other officials might deem superfluous or unnecessary. Some officials take to the mindset of only give signals as absolutely necessary, and that's a valid stance as well; I've simply found that it doesn't work for a kinesthetic learner as myself.

The way the communication philosophy relates to this play is thus: Unless a foul ball is exorbitantly obvious (such as a batted ball out of play), I "go through the motions" of putting my arms up in the standard "Time" mechanic, to signal a dead ball. I likely won't verbalize "Foul" or anything to that effect on a play where the ball is plainly foul, like this one, but I nonetheless put arms up if for nothing else than for my own edification.

Ask the UEFL - Runner Catches Foul Ball in Vols Game

HP Umpire Darren Spagnardi ejected Tennessee baseball head coach Tony Vitello during the Vols' NCAA game against Vanderbilt after a foul ball call when Vandy runner Isaiah Thomas caught a batted ball in foul territory. 

The Ask the UEFL question before us ponders whether a baserunner touching a batted ball in foul territory can constitute interference. Although this analysis uses the NCAA ruleset, both professional OBR and high school NFHS rules are similar.

In addition to the definition of "foul ball" holding that a batted ball is foul when it touches a player in foul territory prior to bounding past first or third base, the relevant rule regarding interference is NCAA 8-5-d, which states that "a runner is out when—the runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball" (the Official Baseball Rules/pro version is OBR 5.09(b)(3), "he intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball").

Pursuant to this rule, the interference with a batted ball need not be intentional and the batted ball need not be fair. By the strictest reading of 8-5-d, Thomas could have conceivably been called for interference.

That said, the spirit of the rule as well as tenets of common sense and fair play factor in here: was this ball likely to be fair if not for the runner's actions? If interference was to be called on this ground ball in foul territory, what precisely did R3 interfere with F5 from doing—if the only answer is "fielding a foul ball," is this truly interference meritorious of an out call?

Gil's Call: Given the overwhelming evidence to suggest this ball would have otherwise been foul if not for the runner's touch (Coach Vitello said "It would have taken an awkward bounce for the thing to be fair, obviously"), the common sense interpretation of 8-5-d here would be to leave this play alone and simply call the ball foul, as the umpires did.

As for the ejection, ESPN/SEC's broadcasters used the phrase "when they're on their way back to the dugout," an oft-used "they were walking away" argument. However, analysis of the film at the moment umpire Spagnardi dips his right shoulder to begin his ejection mechanic, Coach Vitello, clearly has his face turned toward the umpire and appears to be verbally engaged.

So much for walking away.

In regard to the reason for ejection, Vitello perhaps unwittingly explained that the conversation with Spanardi had veered into ejectable territory: "For whatever reason, it got real personal in a hurry. It was a lot less about the things going in the game than it was more personal."

Video as follows:

Gimenez Puts Out Eaton - Tmac & Gil Debate

White Sox batter-runner Adam Eaton pushed Indians shortstop Andres Gimenez after 2B Umpire Bill Miller called Eaton out on a tag play, alleging that Gimenez illegally forced him off of second base to create the out. In our debate, Gil says safe & tmac says out. What's the rule?

Play: With one on and none out, White Sox batter Adam Eaton hit a ground ball to Indians right fielder Josh Naylor, who threw to third baseman Jose Ramirez as Tim Anderson slid into third base and back to shortstop Andres Gimenez as Eaton slid into second base, ruled out by 2B Umpire Bill Miller.

Rule: As a reference point, we consider the Official Baseball Rules' definition for overslide/oversliding ("the act of an offensive player when his slide to a base, other than when advancing from home to first base, is with such momentum that he loses contact with the base") and the MLB Umpire Manual's approved interpretation: "If in the judgment of an umpire, a runner is pushed or forced off a base by a fielder, intentionally or unintentionally, at which the runner would have otherwise been called safe, the umpire has the authority and discretion under the circumstances to return the runner to the base he was forced off following the conclusion of the play."

Considerations & History: As we reviewed during the 2020 World Series when Dodgers batter-runner Max Muncy slid into second base and Rays shortstop Willy Adames, several questions help toward solving this puzzle: Did the runner have body control that would have enabled him to undoubtedly remain on the base if not for the fielder's actions? Did the runner push the fielder off-balance first or did the fielder on his own volition push or force the runner from the base? Perhaps the most famous instance of this type of play was Kent Hrbek lifting Ron Gant's foot off of first base during the 1991 World Series.

Related Post: Was Max Muncy's Fall From 2nd Base a Legal Out? (10/24/20).

Remember, the MLBUM interpretation states the fielder's actions may be either intentional or unintentional, but the underlying question is whether the fielder's actions were caused by the runner or not. If so, we might have incidental contact, but if not, we might have a situation where this interp could apply.

Finally, as this play concluded with a benches-clearing incident, we consider Eaton's post-play shove of Gimenez. Could further disruption to the game have been prevented by the umpire getting in between the players or is the "new normal" to let players have at it and sort out the trouble afterward? With replays clearly indicating Eaton continuing to argue with Miller during the unsportsmanlike event, could Miller's refraining from entering the fray have saved an escalation between Eaton and Miller?

Video as follows:

Replay Concepts - A Clear & Convincing Review

After Sunday Night Baseball's Phillies-Braves Replay Review controversy, the one remaining question pertained to MLB's "clear and convincing" standard, whereupon umpires in New York rule on whether video evidence stringently supports one of two outcomes.

To borrow from Philadelphia-Atlanta, if the burden of proof was met to support the theory that the runner touched home plate, the correct replay outcome would be "confirmed"; if the burden of proof was met to support the theory that the runner never touched home plate, the correct replay outcome would be "overturned"; and if neither of these two scenarios applied, the outcome would be "call stands," which is what transpired.

Related Post: Replay Rewind - Phillies' Play at the Plate in Atlanta (4/11/21).

The problem, once again, with ATL-PHI was that no readily available video angle provided an unobstructed view at the runner's interaction with home plate: whether because of an umpire's pant leg in the way, dirt being kicked up, or parallax angle, the video evidence didn't satisfy the high burden of proof required for confirming or overturning a call.

That's how nit-picky MLB's Replay Rules are: even if it appears physically impossible that the runner would have touched home plate, unless a camera angle fully proves that to be the case, it is inadmissible in the sense that it fails to conclusively confirm whether the plate was touched or not: all it takes is a frame or two of inconclusiveness where the runner "could have" touched home plate (even though the runner may likely have not) for "call stands" to enter into the equation.

Remember, the only outcome looking to prove that the runner did touch home plate is "confirmed." For "overturned" to apply, the video must conclusively prove the runner wholeheartedly did not touch home plate. Absent this, "call stands" by rule is the logical outcome: this is what is referred to in the difficulty in proving a negative: proving that something did not happen...because for every frame in which home plate and/or the runner's foot is blocked or distorted from view, the runner could have touched the plate and the evidence that the runner conclusively did not do so is blocked or obstructed in some way.

This is why HP Umpire Lance Barrett's on-field ruling of "safe" was so important. Unless MLB were to change its replay rules to a standard of probability rather than assuredness, the original call will always have two-to-one odds (e.g., confirmed & stands [2] vs overturned [1]).

Where Call Stands Errs: Perhaps the best way to illustrate this concept is by finding a clear and convincing example of a Replay Official erring on a call that should be overturned.

Enter Saturday's Detroit-Cleveland game in which Jordan Luplow hit a fly ball to the wall in left field, ruled a double (not HR) on the field. Here, the proof wasn't of a negative, it was of a positive: in order to overturn the call, all the Replay Official would need is evidence that the ball did something (in this case, hit the black railing atop the yellow line and behind the outfield wall). Yet despite a diagonal camera angle appearing to indicate the ball changed direction along the railing—suggestive of the ball making contact with the structure—replay nonetheless returned a "call stands" verdict.

THIS version of "call stands" would thus appear to be incorrect, for clear and convincing evidence to suggest that something did definitively happen, as opposed to PHI-ATL, where in replay failed to conclusively prove whether or not something did not occur. In other words, to prove the affirmative/positive instance that something did happen, only one example of the action occurring is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof, whereas to prove the absence/negative that something did not happen, every instance of evidence must conform to prove that the action definitively did not occur.

Video as follows:

Replay Rewind - Phillies' Play at the Plate in Atlanta

When Replay Review upheld HP Umpire Lance Barrett's safe call on Phillies runner Alec Bohm's go-ahead run in the 9th inning against Atlanta Sunday night, the Braves looked to have fallen victim to MLB's video review rules and the infamous "call stands" outcome.

In sum, Bohm tagged from third base on batter Didi Gregorius' sacrifice fly to left fielder Marcell Ozuna, who threw to Braves catcher Travis d'Arnaud as Bohm slid into home plate where he either did or did not make contact with the plate using his left shoe, with HP Umpire Barrett ruling the runner safe and Atlanta Manager Brian Snitker challenging the call.

Enter Replay Review, which after several minutes determined that not enough video evidence existed—it wasn't "clear and convincing"—to prove the runner had failed to touch home plate, and for that reason, the on-field ruling of "safe" stood. Philadelphia scored its seventh run of the ballgame and went on to win the contest, 7-6.

Had MLB's Replay Review been set up to call plays as they presented themselves based on a most probable standard—with two options, "safe" or "out" as the case may be—the outcome here likely would have been an out call.

But since Replay Review splits up outcomes into call confirmed (the evidence is clear and convincing that the umpire's call was correct), overturned (the evidence is clear and convincing that the umpire's call was incorrect), and stands (the evidence fails to meet that threshold)—made even more difficult by the logically arduous and complex task of trying to prove a negative, that something did not happen (that the runner did not touch home plate)—the outcome here in the judgment of the Replay Official was "call stands" for lack of evidence.

Video as follows:

Judge Dismisses Angel Hernandez's Discrimination Case

New York Southern District Court Judge J Paul Oetken dismissed Angel Hernandez's discrimination case against Major League Baseball which alleged MLB unlawfully discriminated against the veteran umpire based on his race, ethnicity, and/or national origin.

In doing so, Judge Oetken agreed that MLB employs a low proportion of umpires who are minorities compared to other leagues, but similarly used those figures to agree with MLB's argument that, thanks to Minor League Baseball's purported failure to supply the major leagues with umpiring diversity, the pool of protected class umpires that make it to the big leagues is simply too small to draw the conclusion that the league systemically discriminates on the basis of race or another protected characteristic.

Wrote Oetken, "the fact that no or very few minorities were promoted [is] 'statistically meaningless,'" thus rejecting Hernandez's inexorable zero argument that courts should look beyond basic statistical analysis when defendants have promoted "zero or near zero minorities or women" (ed note: MLB still has not hired a woman to officiate major league contests, so similar base statistical analysis would likely be meaningless there, as well). Regarding the Crew Chief claim, for instance, the Court cited Richie Garcia, a crew chief who last umpired in 1999, as evidence that MLB has had a minority crew chief in the past and thus, the inexorable zero argument cannot apply.

Now that MLB actually owns the Minor League Baseball pipeline, however, the diversity problem—which MLB previously argued does not exist—would now be fully owned by MLB, if it were to continue.

Related Post: MLB Argues No Evidence of Diversity Problem in Suit (6/8/20).

Judge Oetken also left room for second-guessing his summary judgment decision, writing phrases leaving doubt, such as, "the record is not entirely clear regarding how MLB develops mid- and end-season evaluations" and "the record is not transparent about the weight [former Chief Baseball Officer Joe] Torre affords the criteria he uses in promotion decisions."

Hernandez had argued that his mid- and end-season evaluations and their interaction with how MLB's top brass selected World Series umpires and Crew Chief promotions were improperly handled. By leaving the evaluations question open-ended and "not entirely clear," Oetken may very well have left the door open to appeal from Hernandez's team, if they should choose to do so.

Oetken cited the Collective Bargaining agreement between the MLB Umpires Association (then-World Umpires Association) and MLB, writing that the CBA gives MLB "absolute and exclusive discretion" in umpire hiring/promotion/assignment and, as such, cited MLB's emphasis of "the consistent display of leadership skills" as the "most important" factor in crew chief decisions, pursuant to Torre's testimony.

For example, even with Hernandez producing evidence that multiple supervisors had recommended him for the World Series in 2012 and 2015, the Court found that due to the CBA, MLB could simply say "no" and, unless the League overtly made the decision with a stated racial motivation, without regard to fairness, it was most likely lawful.

Related Post: Angel's New Evidence - Sups Wanted Hernandez in WS; Woodfork Said No (4/26/20).

The same legally ok and ethically unreviewable argument could very well apply to such behaviors as Fieldin Culbreth's testimony in which he detailed how the league pressured him to apply for an open crew chief position even though he did not want to apply and felt the job should have gone to Wally Bell or to Hernandez.

Related Post: Joe West Testifies for Angel in Hernandez's MLB Suit (7/22/20).

In other words, the statistics showing Hernandez's above-average plate scores, superior Replay Review record compared to non-protected class umpires who were promoted in his place, supervisor recommendations to work the Fall Classic, and other quantitative records were all largely dismissed by the Court in favor of MLB's subjective criteria for promotion, pursuant to the CBA's "absolute and exclusive discretion" clause.

As such, and without a smoking gun directly leading to a reading of racial bias, as opposed to personal animus Torre might have had with Hernandez, Judge Oetken issued a summary dismissal, noting that while Hernandez may have been treated poorly—and may still continue to be treated unfairly—it does not rise to the level of a prima facie case for racially-motivated discrimination.

To drive his point home, Oetkin wrote that MLB's "subjective and multi-faceted nature" of assignment/promotion decision-making was, itself, legal, even if it might be unfair.

Gil's Call: The bottom line, in my estimation is thus: MLB got lucky through a technicality that it pays its lawyers a lot of money to detect and insert into CBA language. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York all but announced a diversity problem does indeed exist in baseball umpiring, thus rejecting MLB's argument that no such issue infects its league.

Yet, because Hernandez's case required substantial evidence of active intent to racially discriminate, given the CBA's "absolute and exclusive discretion" language, the Court was effectively prohibited from considering objective metrics such as plate score and replay statistics that conclusively did show Hernandez's superiority when compared to white umpires promoted and assigned in his stead. Instead, the Court was obligated to defer to MLB's subjective judgment, which, absent overt evidence of intent to discriminate, must be allowed to prevail.

The bottom line? MLBUA should seen to strike that language—"absolute and exclusive discretion"—but given the outcome of this case, MLB will likely fight tooth and nail to keep it on the books.

Video as follows:

Angel Hernandez Trends on Day 1 of Spring as Sports Toxicity Returns to 2021 Season

Umpire Angel Hernandez trended on Twitter on Day 1 of Spring Training, receiving a flurry of vitriol and criticism after St. Louis Cardinals broadcaster Dan McLaughlin took issue with a ball/strike call that turned out to be correct, according to the computerized graphical strike zone the media generally enjoys referring to when an umpire's call is at odds with a team's preference.

The controversial call occurred during the top of the 1st inning of St. Louis' game against the Washington Nationals when Hernandez ruled a 1-1 pitch from Jack Flaherty low for ball two, a call that appeared to be supported by computerized graphics in use by MLB's own website.

AH called Pitch #3 a ball.

Nonetheless, Hernandez's correct call elicited a barrage of personal tweets from baseball fandom attacking the veteran umpire—in the top of the first inning, of the first game of spring.

As we have noted time and time again using the article label "Umpire Abuse," the sports world suffers from severe issues, including a harmful cultural attitude toward its officials.

In Hernandez's case, the existence of a lawsuit filed against Major League Baseball alleging discrimination based on race and national origin complicates matters in a way that compounds the abuse he, as an umpire, receives.

For instance, the consequence and character of Hernandez's pitch call in the first inning Sunday—very likely his first borderline call of 2021—in no way corresponded to the level of backlash he received (online...in the stadium, there was no such negative reaction). In other words, Hernandez's history influenced what occurred virtually, and largely for reasons previously discussed.

Hernandez, through his audacity in attempting to challenge a potentially oppressive system that sees a tremendous underrepresentation of Latino umpires relative to players (27% Latino players / 5% Latino umpires at the time of Hernandez's 2017 filing), or Crew Chiefs outright (0% Latino crew chiefs at the time of his filing), has drawn the scorn of a sports world not ready to reconcile a potentially uncomfortable reality that marginalization exists.

And for the crime of standing up for himself, it hardly comes as a surprise that Hernandez remains a favorite target of online bullying, personal attacks, and unmeritorious insults.

Oddly enough, McLaughin's quip that Hernandez was in "midseason form" actually was correct after all: the umpire correctly ruled a borderline pitch out of the strike zone and it is statistically true that umpires tend to get most calls right.

Video as follows:

Gil's Call - Callaway's Conduct Symptom of Larger Problem

When recent allegations surfaced alleging inappropriate behavior by former Mets Manager and Angels Pitching Coach Mickey Callaway, some of the remarks from alleged victims resembled comments made by umpire recipients of on-field abuse.

In this Gil's Call, we explore the relationship between abuse of officials by certain coaches, managers, or players that occurs on the field and allegations of misconduct that surfaces off the field.

The large difference, naturally, is that, by and large, an abusive person's misconduct during a game occurs on the field, directed at people who wear a certain uniform, while the abuse off the field is largely directed at people who share a certain personal characteristic.

In order to weed out the latter—which society at large seems to have formed a consensus as a largely unacceptable act—could, perchance, addressing the former—which society at large seems to somehow be okay with—prove an effective countermeasure?

When stories like Callaway break, many in the media or fandom decry how this could have happened, said coach is one bad apple, etc...yet those same newsmakers readily rack b-roll footage of said manager having an explosive temper tantrum directed at an umpire during a previous year's ejection to accompany the "shocking" story, as if the two aren't even remotely related.

Similar misconduct, even if different in form, is still abuse, whether it occurs on or off the field. Society seems to think the fence line separating the playing surface from the spectator area—or even the stadium gates—somehow holds a magical property that keeps things "between the lines" and suspends the principles of transitivity.

Here at CloseCallSports, we have long chronicled the perils of umpire/referee abuse and its detrimental effect on the sports officiating community.

Related Label: Umpire Abuse.

Yet for some reason, leagues have remained reluctant to substantially address bad behavior, which in 2017 led to a World Umpires Association-wide white wristband protest, followed not even one year later by the rebranded union, MLBUA, publicly calling for MLB to take action after yet another instance of umpire abuse from ejected personnel: whatever the league negotiated in the wristband protest finale clearly wasn't strong enough to hold for more than one season.

Related Post: WUA-MLB Relations Deteriorate with New Umpire Protest (8/19/17).

Related Post: MLBUA Calls for BOC Action After Latest Umpire Abuse (9/23/18).

The on-field abuse issue remains so pervasive that our mental health sponsor, Outstanding Sportsmanship is Paramount (OSIP Foundation), runs a hotline called Officials Anonymous for officials experiencing issues related to abuse. After all, the same b-roll footage used to support a potentially abusive manager's indictment could very well be used to supplement a sport's officials disclosure of trauma.

Related Link: http://www.osipfoundation.org/offanon.html.

When we are inconsistent in enforcing boundaries—by permitting abuse to continue on the field while decrying it off the field—the end result is covert abuse and gaslighting behavior off the field an a pervasive sense of entitlement. Callaway's alleged misconduct is, extremely likely, just the tip of the iceberg: not for Callaway personally, but in terms of abusive conduct by others which to this point remains unpublicized.

Disagreements are okay, arguments are okay, even yelling may be acceptable under certain circumstances. But abuse—whether through manipulative gaslighting, bullying, or overt illicit activity—is never okay and when it's time for the dispute to conclude, the afflicted teammate must be able to acknowledge and accept the umpire's stern edict of "no": the umpire must be shown that respect for autonomy.

And, thus, in order for "no means no" to work off the field, it must also work on the field and be backed up by those in charge. If the powers-that-be continue to be unable to do so, this systemic abuse—in whatever form it might take—will undoubtedly continue.

It shouldn't have to take covert abuse transmogrifying into a PR nightmare for a suspension to occur, at least not with all this prior evidence, and b-roll footage, sitting plainly in the public eye.

Video as follows:

COVID Criminal? Texas Football Player Attacks Referee

Our series on abuse-of-officials continues in Texas, when Edinburg High School Football defensive end Emmanuel Duron became an alleged criminal after attacking a referee following his disqualification/ejection from Thursday's game, leading to police involvement.

After a late hit on the quarterback penalty and an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, Edinburg High School senior and DE Emmanuel Duron appeared to forcefully shove referee Fred Garcia during Edinburgh's Thursday's playoff play-in game against Pharr-San Juan-Alamo following the white hat's penalty announcement.

Note: The technical officiating jargon here is disqualification, but for all intents and purposes (e.g., when comparing the action to something seen in professional baseball), the decision to remove the offending player from the game is on par with an ejection.

Following the alleged criminal act, local reporter Andrew McCulloch reported that a card had been brought on the field to assist the victim. Several minutes later, the referee stood up and walked off the field under his own power.

Law enforcement identifies Duron.

Although local reports indicated that police officers escorted Duron from the field, he was not handcuffed, no arrest was reported, the officers who escorted Duron from the stadium stated "No comment, we're not at liberty to talk about that," and after a delay, the game continued with Edinburg ultimately winning the contest, 35-21.

According to the National Association of Sports Officials (NASO)'s 2020 Legislative Scorecard, Texas is one of 22 states that have passed officiating assault and/or harassment laws, though Texas' law is not exclusive to officials and rather pertains to any person who participates in a sporting event (such as players).

It states that such intentional physical contact against someone who is a sports participant shall constitute a Class B misdemeanor; however, if the victimized referee is an elderly individual, the classification would increase to Class A.

In 2008, Euless Trinity High School player Eric Fieilo attacked an official in a similar manner—blindside hit during a playoff game, his last of senior year—and, as a result, was sent to an alternative school and lost scholarship offers. Fieilo, however, was not charged with a crime.

Does crime pay? After graduating from Sam Houston State, which opted to give Fieilo a football scholarship after all, Fieilo—having not been charged for his high school alleged assault—joined the Euless Police Department, which apparently had no issue with Fieilo's purported violent battery on a fellow citizen.

13% of officials have been assaulted.

After the potential purported criminal became a police officer, Fieilo had two human interest stories written about him: one by Dallas Morning News reporter Naheed Rajwani and a second by Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Bill Hanna. Both articles portrayed Fieilo's story as redemption, with Rajwani deeming him a "revered cop" who recovered from "his most embarrassing moment" and Hanna writing of Fieilo's "horrible decision."

Neither Rajwani nor Hanna mentioned Fieilo's victim and in lieu of apologizing to the man he admittedly attacked, Fieilo instead praised God for giving him a second chance and called the incident and its aftermath a "blessing."

Unfortunately, the official Fieilo hit wasn't asked to comment on how much of a "blessing" it was to have been the victim of a purportedly injurious violent crime.

Assaults on officials have resulted in several deaths over the years, including 2013's death of Utah soccer referee Ricardo Portillo at the hands of an unnamed player who he had issued a yellow card to moments earlier. In 2014, referee John Bieniewicz died after ejected player Baseel Abdul-Amir Saad allegedly punched him in the head.

So if you're ever debating about the importance of pressing charges when attacked, remember the name Elikena "Eric" Fieilo, the player who allegedly assaulted an official and instead of being charged with a crime, became a police officer in the very same town.

Willy Adames' Subtle Push Part II - Fool Me Twice

After Max Muncy's Game 4 adventure with Rays SS Willy Adames at second base, Tampa Bay's shortstop tried for an encore performance with Dodgers runner Austin Barnes during #WorldSeries Game 5, resulting in another umpire's out call. Was this call the proper one or did Adames get greedy?

To review, 2B Umpire Mark Carlson during Game 4 declared Los Angeles batter-runner Max Muncy out at second base after an overslide into Adames, during which both players tumbled to the ground on the third-base side of the bag.

In our analysis, we discussed Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(4), the Definition of Terms' entry for oversliding, and MLB Umpire Manual standard for a fielder pushing or forcing a runner off a base. Conclusion: Carlson's call was correct; the runner was properly declared out on the tag after oversliding second base.

Related Post: Was Max Muncy's Fall From 2nd Base a Legal Out? (10/24/20).

In Game 5, Adames repeated his putout antics by tagging Barnes as he slid headfirst into second base and attempted to remain on the base with his left foot. This, too, resulted in an out call from 2B Umpire Laz Diaz.

Compare and Contrast, Gil's Call: Unlike the Muncy play, it would appear that Barnes was forced or pushed off of second base by Adames.

The reason for this is two-fold. First, compared to Game 4's play in which Muncy appeared to be the player responsible for the bulk of the forceful contact with his opponent (Muncy crashed into Adames), in Game 5, Adames appears to be the player responsible for the collision by virtue of diving into (or onto) Barnes, who is sliding headfirst and has only his legs at the base.

Second, Adames appears to actively direct his right hand—his non-glove hand without the ball—directly into Barnes' left leg and, in doing so, pushes Barnes off the base. Although the rule does not require the act to be intentional in order for the umpire to judge that a runner has been improperly pushed off of a base, it appears that Adames' act—not the runner's momentum—primarily caused Barnes to break contact with the base, meaning the proper remedy would be to declare the runner safe.

That said, this is a judgment call, and if the umpire's judgment, Barnes would have been unable to hold the base even without the fielder's perceptively illegal intervention, the proper call would be to declare the runner out—even if the fielder intentionally caused the runner to come off of the base.

Your mileage may vary | Video as follows:

Umpire Plate Scores - Comparing Scoring Methods

When we introduced UEFL f/x 3.0, we spoke of the plate score tool's transparency, accuracy, timeliness, and thoroughness for ball/strike umpire analysis. One question we received asks why numbers by another ump scorecard source doesn't match ours.

To begin, there exist roughly two main methods for strike zone analysis: one is to let MLB's Baseball Savant make all determinations as to whether a given pitch is located within or outside of the strike zone and the other is to parse the data to calculate and assign a probable ball/strike status to each pitch.

Boston University/UmpScores

The BU version, made famous from Mark T. Williams' umpire study, employs the former method, which is most convenient and less processor-intensive for a tremendously large set of data points. As we found in 2019, this Baseball Savant scraping method relies on a variable roughly known as "zone," which does exactly what it looks like: It assigns a single-digit number (1-9) for a pitch located within the strike zone and a double-digit number (11-14) for a pitch located outside the zone. Much like a MIDI file sans percussion from the 1990s, track 10 isn't used.

Related Post: Call for Umpire Accountability & the 97% Plate Score (4/19/19).

Because the Zone variable is derived from other variables to calculate what number to assign as a zone statistic, this approach essentially doesn't work with measured data and instead relies on a processed number pursuant to Savant terms and manipulation. Not great for the scientific method, but a lot easier and simpler to calculate whether an umpire's call of ball/strike matches with Savant's zone designation of 11-14 (ball) or 1-9 (strike). Thus, a ball call on a pitch with zone 14 would be deemed Correct and a ball call on a pitch with zone 9 would be Incorrect. Simple.

UmpScorecards

UEFL f/x and UmpireScorecards appear to share the second of data collection methods through analysis of raw variables px, pz, sz_bot, and sz_top.

The difference between UEFL f/x's tri-score report and Scorecards or Auditor's single, simplified report is primarily how calculations are made after collecting raw data.

Related Post: About UEFL f/x 3.0 Plate Scores for Postseason (9/29/20).

Whereas UEFL f/x runs through a process to analyze each pitch three different ways for the three different scores, accounting for a certain measure of error and physical properties of a baseball (e.g., as we've stated since the beginning, Auditor artificially inflates umpire "missed call" statistics by failing to acknowledge that a baseball has a radius), the other systems only return a number for what we call ML Public, or a zero-error system.

Scorecards, meanwhile, took to creating graphics to represent what it calls "Worst Missed Calls in terms of change in run expectancy" (yes, there really is a significant font size difference, and that's part of the issue: it's designed as a tool to measure changes in run expectancy first and considers umpire accuracy determination somewhat of an afterthought). This proved problematic when, for Angel Hernandez's October 7, 2020 game, Scorecards claimed the worst missed call of the game (see above), labeled Pitch 1, was a ball call that...well...looks like a correct call, drawing several critical replies, such as "1 is a ball all day long. But we are counting that as 'inaccurate'?"

This is what a zero-error (ML Public) system does: creates zero allowance on the edges. Yet perhaps, thanks to these graphics, it might be easier to comprehend why exactly ML Public scores tend to trend lower than UEFL f/x (other than the margin of error issue): because computers, despite acting entirely logically, seemingly act decidedly inhuman in robotically applying criteria.

The other issue pertains to Scorecards admitting to not knowing where to draw the line as to the edge of the strike zone, and admitting to not knowing how Savant graphs its strike zones (e.g., how a full game's plot isn't normalized, dating back to the Brooks Baseball days of strike zone graphics). This, too, might just be problematic for large-scale analysis using very precise numbers where baseball is colloquially a game of inches, though in the 21st century, it has become a game of mere fractions.

This also explains the difference between Scorecards' numbers and our ML Public numbers: the values used for plate edges as well as the values used for the radius of a baseball might be different, which would explain different plate scores using conceivably similar zero-error methods. ML Public, for instance, just happens to calculate radius from circumference pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 3.01 (Auditor's favorite rule to ignore), and plate width from a combination of OBR 2.02 and Definition of Terms [Strike Zone].

Apparently, the pressure might be getting to Scorecards as evidenced by Friday morning's tweet, "I KNOW BALLS 1 AND 2 ARE VERY CLOSE. Please do not yell at me."

Must not be an umpire.

Video as follows:

Booby Bumbaca - USA Today Criticizes Bucknor While Simultaneously Showing Graphics Exonerating Him

USA Today's Chris Bumbaca executed a most incredible self-own in the very first sentence of an article attempting to criticize umpire CB Bucknor's Yankees-Rays strike zone, writing, "blaming the umpires is a lazy excuse, especially in the playoffs."

Facts and figures cited by Bumbaca himself further cemented the article author's relationship with fatuity, as, while attempting to malign Bucknor for missing pitches, Bumbaca used graphics that accomplished two unintended goals.

First, the article included images from MLB-owned Baseball Savant that clearly indicated Bucknor made correct calls on several pitches Bumbaca alleged the umpire had missed.

And, second, these graphics seemed to expose Bumbaca's rapport with the rules: specifically Definition of Terms' "A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which..."is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone."

Or, alternatively, the unusual critique unintentionally belied Bumbaca's own quality of visual acuity.

Either way, here's a Commentary Critique and fact check: Print Edition.

Claim: Pitch 5 is off the plate.

Claim 1: "Pitch 5 is off the plate" (see graphic)

Factual Analysis: Although UEFL f/x found this pitch was located over the edge of home plate and thus categorized it as QOC = Correct (affirmed after processing), we know the general population prefers graphics, and indeed, Bumbaca's article referenced a Savant Gamefeed graphic of the at-bat. Of all pitches during the at-bat to critique, Bumbaca chose Pitch 5 of a first-inning NYY Deivi Garcia vs TB Randy Arozarena at-bat, which the graphic clearly indicates was indeed touching the strike zone.

We're left with two options: Either the author doesn't know the rule referenced above or the author failed to see the visualization referenced in his article and cited as the basis for the claim. Either way, the claim lacks merit. As for the lower pitches ruled "ball"—recall the post-game processing effect on sz_bot/sz_top and remember the accompanying bot/top strike zone boundaries are inaccurate for this reason. Curious that MLB hasn't yet addressed this issue after at least a decade of having been made aware of this problem.

Fact Check Result 1:  False .

Claim: Pitch No. 3 is a ball.

Claim 2: "Pitch No. 3 is a ball" (see graphic)

Factual Analysis: It would be helpful if the Savant Gamefeed graphic indicated "called strike" versus swings and misses. Nonetheless, Pitch 3 (sidebar: choose a style-guide format and stick with it. Pitch 5 vs Pitch No. 3?) during Tampa Bay pitcher Tyler Glasnow's swinging strikeout of New York shortstop Gleyber Torres was located off the edge of home plate.

Fact Check Result 2:  True .

Claim: Pitch No. 3 is off the plate.

Claim 3: "Pitch No. 3 is off the plate" (see graphic)

Factual Analysis: Once again, if a journalist wants to use a graphic, it would really be helpful to use a plot or chart that actually supports the claim being made. Though less overt than Claim 1, above, this claim relating to Nick Anderson's strikeout of DJ LeMahieu similarly features a graphic indicating the pitch in question actually touched the strike zone. UEFL f/x had it as a correct strike call.

Fact Check Result 3:  False .

There are others, but it's simpler to just list fact check results rather than waste more time: True False True True.

Bucknor's ALDS score on 10/6/20.

The bottom line is really the Bumbaca's lede: "blaming the umpires is a lazy excuse, especially in the playoffs." Even lazier? Not making the connection between graphics being used to denigrate an umpire's performance and the actual facts of the graphics and/or rulebook.

Nonetheless, if Bucknor's 93.6% game Tuesday (higher than one, lower than two others on Tuesday) is to be considered subpar by Bumbaca's standards, what of an article whose own accuracy percentage, pursuant to fact checking, is just 57% (four true claims vs three false ones)? And how is it that certain umpires—who routinely score higher than some and lower than others—routinely absorb criticism while the umpires they score higher than evade such blown-call hit piece critique?

A pending lawsuit alludes to racism.

Expect more science-averse "analysis" from the general public for Angel Hernandez's plate Wednesday night in the Padres-Dodgers series. Does Jamaican or Cuban heritage have anything to do with it; does Hernandez's famous lawsuit against MLB alleging racially-motivated actually portend to a larger systemic problem in the sports world?

I'm sure Twitter will remain civil and decidedly not prejudicial, not even for a second.

Related Post: Ballad of Angel Hernandez - An Umpire's Controversy (10/9/18).

Video as follows:

MLB Announces Atlantic League as First Partner

Major League Baseball has found its first Partner: The Atlantic League of Professional Baseball. The new designation means that ALPB and MLB will meet and coordinate regularly regarding marketing, promotional opportunities, and, yes, experimental rules changes.

MLB's press release states that, "During the 2019 season, MLB and ALPB partnered to successfully test the Automated Ball-Strike System (ABS), which used radar tracking technology to assist home plate umpires in calling balls and strikes."

Given our documentation concerning ABS' performance in the 2019 Atlantic League, however, Webster might want to rewrite the dictionary's definition of the word "success" to better accommodate what actually happened in the 2019 ALPB and Arizona Fall League.

Related Post: Computer Strike Call Prompts Navas' AFL Ejection (10/16/19).

Related Post: ABS Playoff Highlights - Delayed Calls & System Errors (10/1/19).

Related Post: Atlantic League ABS Robo-Ump Ejection Encore (9/28/19).

Related Post: Arizona Fall Testing Automated Ball/Strike System (9/27/19).

Related Post: Bemused Batter Buzzes ABS Online (7/30/19).

Related Post: ALPB's Strike Zone Change & 1st ABS Call (7/26/19).

Related Post: ALPB - Inconsistent TrackMan Use Riles Coaches (7/22/19).

Related Post: ALPB TrackMan Follies - A Neck-High Strike (7/15/19).

Related Post: History - Baseball's First Ejection Due to TrackMan (7/12/19).

Related Post: Reviewing Atlantic League's Automated Strike Zone (7/11/19).

Looks like Joe Torre left his Park Avenue office just in time. | Video as follows:

Related Post: Torre Doesn't Want Robot Umpires in MLB (7/26/19).

Donaldson Doubles Down...Or Betrays Himself

Ejected after hitting a home run by HP Umpire Dan Bellino for arguing a strike call from earlier in the at-bat, Twins 3B Josh Donaldson wasn't on the field as Chicago scored its come-from-behind, game-tying run on a ground ball to third base, a position Donaldson would ordinarily have occupied if not for his early expulsion.

As Chicago completed its victory over Minnesota during a playoff push that coincidentally clinched the postseason for the White Sox, Donaldson doubled down after the game, telling reporters that, "I felt great" about the sequence of events that led to Donaldson's ejection...perhaps Donaldson didn't notice (nor care) about Minnesota's subsequent come-from-ahead loss.

Related Post: MLB Ejection 62 - Dan Bellino (4; Josh Donaldson) (9/17/20).

Twins Manager Rocco Baldelli, meanwhile told the media, he and Donaldson had a private chat about the event and furthermore stated he's "not worried about" the umpires, noting that with good umpires, the next games will continue without incident. And, specifically, with Angel Hernandez's crew (including Bellino) officiating the next Minnesota series, Baldelli is "not worried about that."

Instead, Baldelli said, of Donaldson's frustration and anger, "he's not sure what to do about it frankly."

Related Link: http://www.osipfoundation.org/

Gil's Call: Donaldson stated he kicked dirt on home plate and deliberately provoked an ejection in an attempt to hold the umpire to account. This is hardly a unique subject, as umpire accountability is a routine theme that seems to manifest nearly every baseball season: all without regard for the playoff assignment metric or minimum performance standard.

Related Post: Call for Umpire Accountability & the 97% Plate Score (4/19/19).

Who is Donaldson picturing at HP?

A tale as old as time, perhaps, the accountability theme interweaves with perception of bias—in this case, bias against care, apparently—but is Donaldson's objective really as selfless as he makes it out to be? Donaldson stated his apparent desire not to transition to a computerized strike zone—he disagrees with some of the robot's calls, after all.

After all, what could be more selfless than having yourself ejected in a one-run playoff-push game, only for the opposition to score a key run on a ground ball to your vacated position, only for the game to continue onto changing the win/loss balance to your team's disadvantage?

Donaldson's EJs favor young umps.

What could be more selfless for a six-franchise player (the penultimate two—Cleveland and Atlanta—lasting less than a year each) than to opt for an early exit during a pivotal game?

Naturally, Donaldson's self-described righteous attempt at holding umpires to account fails to take into consideration two things. First, that a majority of his career ball/strike ejections have been associated with the correct call, and, second, well...Minnesota lost the game after leading at the time of ejection.

Donaldson has gotten himself into multiple fights throughout his Major League career, comprising the only ejections from bona fide Crew Chiefs, as is tradition. Otherwise, Donaldson appears keen on displacing unresolved anger issues, possibly childhood, likely father, onto qualified authority figures, that is the younger, less likely to band-about individuals—think Tripp Gibson, Toby Basner, Chris Conroy, and now Bellino; all ball/strike ejections—Donaldson has yet to confront a certain Joe West: too much exposure there, much easier to attack those equal or marginally higher up the seniority food chain, certainly not within Donaldson’s apparent facade of character to legitimately challenge a senior member of the staff, so newer umpires with less clout it is. Authority, but not overwhelmingly so.

When getting involved in a fight, as in the Blue Jays-Rangers ejection, best to stay in the background (or at least in the cover of a crowd) so as to take credit for being involved, but not necessarily being the primary instigator.

Related Post: MLB Ejections 040-047 - Scott & Iassogna (TOR-TEX Fight) (5/15/16).

Donaldson thus says he feels "great"—a statement perceivably as strong as a facade can muster.

Although I suppose we won't have to find out... as long as Donaldson doesn't dox Bellino as he did Basner...Dan's a lawyer, slightly out of one's league.

Video as follows:

Jose's Navas of Steel - The HBP Strikeout

In this Gil's Call, we talk about guts and gumption: having the courage to make a tough call. For first-year MLB umpire Jose Navas, that opportunity presented itself during Sunday's Reds-Cardinals game, when Cincinnati's Jesse Winker leaned into an Andrew Miller slider for a hit-by-pitch, as Navas overruled the HBP's standard base award and declared Winker out on strikes.

The Play: With none out and none on in the top of the 8th inning, lead-off batter Winker worked his way to a 3-2 count. As pitcher Miller delivered his payoff pitch, Winker was struck in the right elbow (pad) by the pitched ball, drawing a standard "Time" call from HP Umpire Navas.

But instead of awarding Winker first base as a hit batsman, Navas enforced Official Baseball Rule 5.05(b)(2), ruling that the pitch was located in the strike zone: Dead ball, strike three, batter's out.

Navas explains his call to Winker.

FWIW: This pitch's px value was 0.84 with a pz of 2.60. RoboUmp starts balling px values greater than 0.83, so while RoboUmp would have balled this pitch by a margin of about 0.1 inches, the call becomes borderline under UEFL f/x and Zone Evaluation rules.

Furthermore, if an off-speed or slider type pitch has cutting action that may have allowed the ball to catch the back corner of home plate (and with a margin of 0.1 inches, that's a distinct possibility), the batter's act of making contact with the ball deprives the umpire with the opportunity to fully adjudicate pitch location, in which case an umpire might choose to err on the side of awarding the pitcher (for hitting the batter? Only if the batter, through his/her actions, deprived the pitcher of securing a called strike the 'old fashioned' way).

If the pitch is located as a strike, it's a strike.

The Rule: OBR 5.05(b)(2) awards the batter first base without liability to be put out when—"He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball; If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched."

Note, however, that (per 5.05(b)(2) Comment): "A batter shall not be considered touched by a pitched ball if the ball only touches any jewelry being worn by a player (e.g., necklaces, bracelets, etc.)" (this is similar to the laces-of-the-glove rule in that superfluous dangles don't count as part of a person, whereas uniform items e.g., baggy shirts or equipment such as elbow padding/braces do).

FoxTrax indicates the ball touched the zone.

As a matter of technicality, whether Navas ruled that Winker failed to attempt to avoid being touched by the pitched ball is rather irrelevant—because he ruled the baseball was located in the strike zone, it's a strike no matter what Winker tried or didn't try to do. In other words, he invoked OBR 5.05(b)(2)(A), not OBR 5.05(b)(2)(B).

Conclusion: This is an incredibly gutsy call to make—and the correct call—especially relative to 5.05(b)(2)(A)'s auto-strike as opposed to 5.05(b)(2)(B)'s auto-ball. For a triple-digit umpire with single-digit major league experience to make this call should rightly earn praise and high marks on an evaluation.

And the post-call explanations and situation-handling by both Navas and Crew Chief CB Bucknor with both Winker and Manager David Bell were phenomenal.

As I've long said, do what's right, which may not always (and often isn't) congruent with what is easy or popular.

Rules Myth: Recall, whether or not a batter "leans into" the pitch is of zero consequence. The rule simply specifies that if a batter "makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball" (for a pitch located outside of the strike zone), which is a significantly lower bar than simply "leaning into" the pitch or not, the proper call is a dead ball, and strike or ball depending on the pitch's location.

Video as follows:

Heads Up - Officiating Baseball's Unwritten Rules

After Padres batter Fernando Tatis Jr. hit a grand slam in Texas, Rangers Manager Chris Woodward—and even San Diego skipper Jayce Tingler—bemoaned a violation of one of baseball's so-called unwritten rules. As an umpire, what mindset should we take into the next game, given Texas' stated animosity in response to Tatis' actions?

Said Woodward after the game, "There's a lot of unwritten rules that are constantly being challenged in today's game. I didn't like it, personally. You're up by seven in the eighth inning; it's typically not a good time to swing 3–0. It's kind of the way we were all raised in the game. But, like I said, the norms are being challenged on a daily basis, so—just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not right."

Tingler described it as, "a learning opportunity and that's it. He'll grow from it."

If it's not in OBR, don't call it.

For the record, Texas pitcher Ian Gibaut (having substituted into the game for the grand slam-surrendering Juan Nicasio) threw his first pitch to subsequent batter Manny Machado behind Machado's back, drawing the attention of HP Umpire Nestor Ceja—working his first-ever MLB regular season plate job—who convened chief Alfonso Marquez's crew to determine whether or not to issue warnings pursuant to OBR 6.02(c)(9) [Intentionally Pitch at Batter].

No further incidents transpired as the Padres cruised to a 14-4 victory.

Heads Up: Now that Texas has had a night to think about it, what should scheduled home plate umpire Cory Blaser pregame prior to Tuesday's SD-TEX matchup: what is an umpire to do?

Gil's Call: Whether one likes the so-called unwritten rules or not, an umpire's job is to call the written rules.

If you're of the mindset that the unwritten rules are foolish, this next sentence is likely superfluous information. But if the unwritten rules hold a dear place in your heart, remember that as an umpire, until the player's conduct violates a written restriction in the Official Baseball Rules, it should not be penalized.

That said, it would similarly be shortsighted for an umpire to ignore the existence of baseball's unwritten rules precisely because a team's perceived violation of such an unwritten rule might give way for retaliation which is a violation of the written rulebook.