Close Call of the Week: Butt-Goal - Should it Have Counted?

Monday's Coyotes-Sabres game ended in bizarre fashion 3:47 into the overtime period when Sabres defenseman Mark Pysyk's wrist shot, assists to Matt Moulson and Christian Ehrhoff, appeared to come to rest in the back of Coyotes goalie Mike Smith's uniform jersey, just above the pads of the pants, as Smith's rear end drifted into the net, the puck physically crossing the plane of the goal line. The game-ending buttgoal was ultimately confirmed after a (1) conference between referees Greg Kimmerly and Chris Rooney and linesmen Greg Devorski and Brad Kovachik and (2) instant replay review from Toronto's video "war room," allowing Buffalo the 2-1 final. But should the goal have counted?

Puck stays in Referee's sight as butt-goal ends game.

NHL Rule 31.4 grants Referees the authority to "give the final decision in matters of disputed goals" while Rule 38.2 unequivocally states that "every goal is to be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge," who, working in concert with the off-ice official at ice level, will relay the result of the replay review to the referee for final decision. As is generally the case, this review process was correctly executed.

At issue is game flow and the question of when shall the officials rule the puck out of bounds. Rule 85.2 states that a puck is considered unplayable if it becomes lodged in the netting outside of either goal, is frozen between opposing players or if it enters a goal from behind or the side. Rule 85.3 states that "should scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play." As the attached image demonstrates, the puck did not fully enter goalie Smith's shirt/pants cradle prior to crossing the goal line; accordingly, play was properly kept alive. Good goal.

Video: Buffalo defeats Phoenix on walk-off #buttgoal win as referee Kimmerly announces the good goal

Top 20 Ejections of 2013: An MLB Network Retrospective

Happy Holidays! The UEFL reviews the Top 20 Ejections of 2013, as selected by MLB Network and aired during their offseason "MLB Network Countdown" series, a countdown of baseball history. Included in MLB Network's list are several bench clearing brawls and throwing at ejections, the walk to break up Yu Darvish's perfect game, Big Papi's dugout phone meltdown in Baltimore and the final two ejections of the late Wally Bell's career. Enjoy and have a joyous Christmas/(Much belated) Chanukah/Kwanzaa and to all a Happy New Year!

*Note: Qualities of Correctness are provided in the following format: Y=Correct, N=Incorrect, U=Irrecusable.

MLB Network Countdown: Top 20 Most Unforgettable Ejections of 2013
Note: Click each umpire's name & ejection # to be taken to the associated ejection report from the season.
20: E 172: Andy Fletcher (5); Dodgers 1B Adrian Gonzalez (Safe Call [Crewmate], QOC = N).
19: E 067: Gary Darling (2); Blue Jays RF Jose Bautista (Strike One Call [Eventual K], QOC = Y).
18: E 068, 069: Wally Bell (1, 2); Giants P George Kontos & Mgr Bruce Bochy (Throwing At, QOC = U).
17: E 146: Paul Nauert (2); Braves LF Justin Upton (Strike One Call [Eventual GO], QOC = Y).
16: E 129: Ron Kulpa (1); Rangers C AJ Pierzynski (Ball Two Call [Eventual BB], QOC = Y).
15: E 091, 092: Chad Fairchild (3, 4); Tigers P Luke Putkonen & Mgr Jim Leyland (Throwing At, QOC = U).
14: E 134/5: Marvin Hudson (2, 3); Nationals P Stephen Strasburg/M Davey Johnson (Throwing At, QOC = U).
13: E 062: Tony Randazzo (1); Indians SS Mike Aviles (Strike One [Foul] Call [Eventual AO], QOC = U).
12: E 051: Hunter Wendelstedt (2); Orioles P Jason Hammel (Throwing At, QOC = U).
11: E 057/8: Clint Fagan (1, 2); Cardinals C Yadier Molina & Manager Mike Matheny (Out Call, QOC = Y).
10: E 139: Brian O'Nora (1); Yankees Manager Joe Girardi (Warnings/Intent HBP Non-Ejection, QOC = U).
#9: E 059/60: Dan Iassogna (2, 3); Pirates C Russell Martin & Mgr Clint Hurdle (Ball Two Call, QOC = Y).
#8: E 081: Angel Hernandez (2); Orioles Manager Buck Showalter (Reversed Foul-to-Out Call, QOC = Y).
#7: E 020/21: Tim Timmons (1, 2); Pirates P Jonathan Sanchez & Mgr Clint Hurdle (Throwing At, QOC = U).
#6: E 170/71: CB Bucknor (3, 4); Braves Mgr Fredi Gonzalez & P Alex Wood (Ball Four Call, QOC = Y).
#5: E 071-76: Clint Fagan (3-8); Diamondbacks-Dodgers Brawl (Throwing At & Fighting, QOC = U).
#4: E 003-6: Sam Holbrook (1-4); Dodgers-Padres Brawl (Fighting, QOC = U).
#3: E 105: Tim Timmons (5); Red Sox DH David Ortiz (Strike One Call [Eventual K], QOC = Y).
#2: E 177-79: Doug Eddings/Paul Nauert (3, 4; 3); Brewers [Carlos Gomez]-Braves Brawl (Fighting, QOC = U).
#1: E 030: Angel Hernandez (1); A's Manager Bob Melvin (Replay Reviewed and Upheld 2B Call, QOC = N).

Not Mentioned: UEFL Ejection of the Year, Ejection 110: Jerry Layne (1; Mike Scioscia), QOC = Y.
Not Mentioned: UEFL Ejection of the Year #2, Ejection 055: Joe West (1; Dale Sveum), QOC = N [Crewmate].

Total Correct: 8 / Total Incorrect: 2 / Total Irrecusable: 10 = 80.0% Accuracy (Compare to 72.2% in 2012)
Click here for the 2012 edition, featuring the Top 25 Most Unforgettable Ejections of 2012.

Close Call of the Week: Illegal Bat on Blocked FG

In the 3rd quarter of Sunday's Steelers-Packers game, Green Bay attempted a field goal to tie on 4th and goal. After Packers kicker Mason Crosby's attempt was blocked by Steelers nose tackle Steve McLendon, the football bounced towards Steelers safety Ryan Clark who attempted to lateral the ball to William Gay before Steelers defensive end Ziggy Hood ultimately contacted the loose ball by batting it out of bounds—and in a forward direction.

Citing Hood's action as illegal batting, referee Carl Cheffers' crew awarded Green Bay a first down, allowing them to retain possession at the Steelers' two-yard line. Steelers coach Mike Tomlin's challenge was denied on the grounds that possession is ineligible for review.

Relevant to this play is NFL Rule 12, Section 4, Article 1, which states an illegal bat has occurred when "a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent's goal line," or forward, the prescribed penalty for which is a loss of 10 yards and automatic first down (since the foul was committed by the defense and prior to any deemed change of possession).

As for that issue of possession which Tomlin challenged, Rule 15-5 states that "recovery of a loose ball that does not involve a boundary line or the end zone" is specifically non-reviewable. Accordingly, officials properly denied Tomlin's request for instant replay review.

Rule 3-2-3 states that "a loose ball (either during or after flight) is considered in possession of team (offense) whose player kicked, passed or fumbled. [Prior possession] ends when a player secures possession or when the down ends if that is before such possession." Article 7 of Rule 3 states that a player is in possession of a ball when "he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

As for gaining possession of a loose ball, a player must not only have (1) complete control of the ball, he must additionally (2) "have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone." Note 1 states that "a player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." Note 1, however, generally is applied during a pass situation.

Replays are inconclusive as to whether Pittsburgh's Clark had possession of the loose ball, although it is clear he attempted to perform an action common to the game in the form of a lateral—again, though, it is unclear whether he gained a firm grip and control of the ball prior to the pitch. The penalty for illegal batting was properly enforced—half the distance (recall the original line of scrimmage) and first down to the offense as the defense was ruled not to have gained possession.

Video: Steelers block Green Bay's game-tying FG attempt, lose the ball out of bounds as penalty flags fly

Japan's First NPB Umpire School Follows The MLB Model

Japan's first ever NPB Umpire School is underway at the Nippon Professional Baseball League's Lotte Urawa Stadium in Saitama City, with a familiar face providing guidance to Japanese umpiring chief Osamu Ino.

Rinko Shinozaki (age 19) is the only
female student in the inaugural class.
Photo: hochi.yomiuri.co.jp

Former MLB umpire and current PBUC Executive Director Justin Klemm, himself a graduate of the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring, forged a partnership with the new NPB Umpire School, helping to draft a new curriculum and establish a comprehensive training program required for all future NPB umpiring hopefuls, similar to MLB's model with the PBUC's own The Umpire School and the approved Wendelstedt Umpire School.

Similar to the post-school PBUC evaluation course, NPB will invite its highest-rated graduates to participate in that league's honor course, a 12-team Spring Training and associated independent baseball leagues.

The NPB Umpire School follows a pair of Winter 2013 (Jan/Feb) camps in Tokyo and Osaka, each held over the course of a weekend. The School began December 18 and concludes on the 23rd, with an inaugural class of 52; tuition and expenses for the first five-day class totaled approximately $775 (or $155 daily), compared to nearly $3-$4,000 (or $120-160 daily) for a five-week course plus expenses for the two Florida schools, including tuition, materials (albeit more course materials & apparel/accessories in the US), room & board or meal plan.

Close Call of Week: Hand Part of Basket—Not Base—Ball

When is the hand considered part of the ball; when can a player handle the game ball or puck? It all depends on which sport you are playing; in most cases off the hardwood, the hand is decidedly not part of the ball.

Baseball - Hand is Not Part of the Ball (Hand is Not Part of the Bat)
This most often comes into play during a plate appearance and hit-by-pitch situations wherein a pitched ball strikes (a) the batter's hand or (b) the bat itself. In (a), the batter is awarded first base without liability to be put out unless he has attempted to strike the pitch, in which case a dead ball strike is ruled (if strike three, the batter is out), or he has not attempted to avoid being touched by the ball, in which case a dead ball ball is ruled, or the pitched ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, in which case a dead ball strike is ruled, while in (b), the ball is ruled foul. Rule 6.08(b) awards the batter first base by virtue of becoming a runner and entitlement to the base when "he is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit," subject to the above conditions. On defense, the hand is likewise not considered part of the ball while possessing it but is simply deemed a body part capable of catching or holding a ball.

Basketball - Hand is Part of the Ball (when in contact with the ball)
This mid-December Close Call of the Week examines a recent foul non-call during an NBA game that ultimately resulted in the ejection of Cavaliers head coach Mike Brown for his excessive campaign for a foul call (see NBA Ejections: McCutchen, Forte, Wright). Replays indicate that as the offensive player attempted to shoot the basketball, the defensive player's hand contacted the shooter's hand while in contact with the ball. Foul or no foul?

All rules codes agree. Whether NFHS, NCAA or NBA/FIBA, the hand is considered "part of the ball" when it is in contact with the basketball, as in a shot attempt. The NFHS rule book, for instance, reminds us of a very important basketball feature in its definitions section pertaining to incidental contact: "The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul" (NFHS 4-27-1 & NBA Comments on the Rules II-A-1). In this situation, it is specifically legal for a defender to use the hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by an offensive player and "accidentally [hit] the hand of the opponent when it is contact with the ball (NFHS 4-24-2). The NBA specifically expands on this point in its "Comments on the Rules" section: "The hand is considered “part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball. Therefore, contact on that hand by a defender while it is in contact with the ball is not illegal" (II-A-1).

Football - Hand is Not Part of the Ball
In American and Canadian football, the hand is afforded special privileges that only the feet share (e.g., a hand or foot may touch the ground and the ballcarrier is not considered down [NFHS/NCAA] or down by contact [NFL]), though may not be used solely to establish inbounds status (NFL Rule 3-2-6). The hand is used to establish player possession (3-2-7), or to hand off the ball yet no rule exists prohibiting contact with the hand, as inter-squad contact is allowed in this sport.

Hockey - Hand is Not Part of the Puck (penalties for certain extended contact / checks legal)
Though the sport only uses a ball in its "field" and "roller" incarnations, the ball or puck for ice hockey is separate and distinct from the player's hand (or glove). Hockey allows batting of the ball or puck with the open hand, but a glove pass and—except for the goalie —covering or closing the hand over the puck is generally illegal. A player can catch the puck out of mid air, provided the player immediately places or knocks it down to the ice. Skating with the puck to avoid a check or gain territorial advantage results in a minor penalty for closing the hand (NHL 67.1). When the penalty occurs in the goal crease area, a penalty shot shall be assessed or a goal awarded (NHL 67.2, 67.4, 67.5). Checks are legal in hockey for those in possession or playing the puck, but contact with the hand is not distinguished.

Soccer (Football/Futbol) - Hand is Not Part of the Ball (except for goalkeepers, is generally illegal use)
Because the use of hands is generally prohibited in this sport save for throw-in situations (deliberate handling of the ball except for the keeper in the penalty area results in a direct free kick / it is a send-off [red card] offense if it denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity [DOGSO]), it is clear the hand is not part of the ball (FIFA Law 12). As for goalkeepers attempting to play a loose ball at the same instant an attacking player attempts to kick or deflect the ball, Law 12 simply states, "when a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent." Because a goalkeeper generally attempts to secure possession through the use of the hands/torso/neck/head area, it may be considered "playing in a dangerous manner...that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone," which is an offence (Law 12). A goalkeeper illegally handling a ball in the penalty area by virtue of a >six-second possession, touching the ball again with the hands after releasing from possession, touching the ball with hands after a deliberate kick or throw-in from a teammate results in an indirect free kick (Law 12).

Close Call of the Week: NBA Flagrant & Technical Ejections

Referees Scott Foster (crew chief), David Jones (R) & Marat Kogut (R2/Umpire) ejected Portland Trail Blazers center Meyers Leonard for a flagrant foul penalty two and Philadelphia 76ers center Daniel Orton for a technical foul in the 4th quarter of the Trail Blazers-76ers game. With 7:19 remaining in the 4th period, Leonard and Orton became entangled at the lower defensive block, away from the ball. Replays indicate Leonard committed a takedown upon Orton, both players falling to the ground as Leonard was whistled for the flagrant foul (type two). During the dead ball skirmish on the ground, Orton appeared to punch/throw an elbow at Leonard's jaw, resulting in a technical foul and ejection. At the time of the ejections, the Trail Blazers were leading, 126-92. The Trail Blazers ultimately won the contest, 139-105.

Wrap: Portland Trail Blazers vs. Philadelphia 76ers, 12/14/13
Video: Physical altercation during play in blowout game leads to throw down, elbow to the mouth

Discussion Point: How is play resumed? What is the proper ruling in college (NCAA), high school (NFHS)?

NBA: Instant Replay is used to determine Leonard (herein "A1")'s foul constituted a flagrant foul penalty two—the takedown was both excessive and unnecessary. Orton (herein "B1") was assessed a technical foul for unsportsmanlike acts during the dead ball period immediately after A1's FF2 foul. The technical is shot first. Because both players were ejected, play is resumed with one technical foul free throw, taken by any of the four remaining players on the floor for Portland (herein "Team A"). Immediately thereafter, the opposing ("Team A") coach shall select the shooter from Philadelphia (herein "Team B")'s bench to shoot the two free throws for the flagrant foul. Team B basketball at the free throw extended. (Rules 12A-V-j, 12B-IV-b, 13-I-a(3), Case Play 123).
- tldr, A1=FF2, B1=Tech, A1 & B1 = Ejected; 1 Tech FT to Team A; 2 FF2 FTs to Team B (HC A choice); B ball.

NCAA: Using Instant Replay, officials rule A1's foul constitutes a flagrant 2 personal foul, resulting in automatic ejection, as in the NBA ruling. B1 is issued a Class A Unsporting Technical for flagrantly (severe/extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead; he too is automatically ejected by rule. Because this is a false double foul (second foul occurred while the clock was stopped for the first foul) and includes a contact dead ball technical foul, the fouls are penalized in the order they occurred. After awarding two free throws for the flagrant foul to B1's substitute, any player from Team A shoots two free throws for the technical foul. Team A basketball at the division line. (Rules 8-3-2, 8-3-4, 10-1-17, 10-1-PENALTY-d-2, 10-3-1-d/e, 10-3-PENALTY, 11-2-1-d-1, A.R. 235).
- tldr, A1=FF2, B1=Cl A Tech, A1 & B1 = Ejected; 2 FF2 FTs to B1's sub; 2 Tech FTs to Team A; A ball.

NFHS: Officials rule A1's foul constitutes a flagrant personal foul, resulting in automatic disqualification to the team bench. B1 is assessed a flagrant technical foul for his dead ball actions, resulting in automatic disqualification to the team bench. As in the NCAA scenario, this is a false double foul; each foul carries its own penalties and are penalized in the order they occurred. After awarding two free throws for the flagrant foul to B1's substitute, any player from Team A shoots two free throws for the technical foul. Team A basketball at the division line. (Rules 8-2, 8-3, 8-6-3, 10-3-7, 10-PENALTY-7).
- tldr, A1=FF, B1=Flag Tech, A1 & B1 = Disqualified; 2 FF FTs to B1's sub; 2 Tech FTs to Team A; A ball.

NBA Ejections: Monty McCutchen, Brian Forte, Sean Wright

Referees Monty McCutchen, Brian Forte & Sean Wright ejected Cleveland Cavaliers head coach Mike Brown for arguing a no-call (blocked shot) during the 2nd quarter of the Cavaliers-Heat game. With 3:14 remaining in the 2nd period, Cavaliers forward Alonzo Gee attempted to score a fast break layup, but was blocked by Heat forward Shane Battier, the carom rebounded by Heat center Chris Bosh. Replays indicate Battier's hand pressed atop the basketball in Gee's hand, the foul non-call was correct (NCC). Brown was issued a first technical for running onto the playing area to argue the play and a second disqualifying technical for continuing to violate the NBA's Respect for the Game guidelines. At the time of the ejection, the Heat were leading, 55-45. The Heat ultimately won the contest, 114-107.

Wrap: Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Miami Heat, 12/14/13
Video: Mike Brown passionately campaigns for foul call on Battier's all-ball stuff of forward Gee

MLB Rules Committee Approves HP Collision Ban

MLB will ban home plate collisions in 2014, requiring catchers provide a path to home plate and runners to slide or otherwise look to avoid contact, if a proposal by baseball's Official Playing Rules Committee is approved by the MLB Players' Association. If the Association, which is expected to approve the rules change, vetoes the proposal, MLB may still be able to institute the rule for the 2015 regular season.

As announced by MLB Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations Joe Torre and Rules Committee Chairman Sandy Alderson, the collision prevention rule will prohibit base runners from initiating contact with the catcher. In turn, catchers will be prohibited from blocking access to home plate. The precise language of the rule change—including procedures, case plays and prescribed penalties—have not yet been determined. Brian Gorman is the only active umpire to serve on MLB's Playing Rules Committee.

Rule 7.06(b) NOTE, which pertains to Obstruction Type B, presently states, "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand." Though unclear if this definition will be expanded if the rule is approved, the expectation is that the catcher will lose the right to block access to home plate even when in the process of fielding or in possession of the baseball.

With MLB's proposed change to OBR on the table, let's review malicious contact ("MC") and flagrant collision as the terms appears in high school (NFHS) and college (NCAA) rule codes, respectively.

NFHS: Rule 3-3-1 pertains to malicious contact, providing penalties for initiating MC from either the offensive or defensive position. Upon MC, (1) the ball is dead, (2) if on offense and not already removed from the base paths ["out" or "scored"], the offending batter/runner is declared out, and (3) the offending player is ejected from the game. If the defense commits the MC, the umpire shall award penalties that in his/her judgment will nullify the act of MC (similar to obstruction B or fan interference). MC can be used to augment other calls (e.g., MC added to interference, as in NFHS 2009 Rule Interpretation 17 [With R1, B1 interferes with fielder taking throw at first base maliciously so that R1 may advance to 3B; Ruling: Eject B1, return R1 to base occupied at time of interference].

Malicious Contact has been a point of emphasis ("POE") in high school for several years, most recently for the upcoming 2014 season (it claims the #1 spot for 2014 POEs).

NCAA: High school's "malicious contact" compares to college's "Flagrant Collision," as in NCAA Rule 2-30. Additionally, Rule 8-7 is the "Collision Rule" and states "the rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielder at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible." However, NCAA does not presently prohibit its fielders (catchers) from blocking the base/plate, as long as there is "clear possession of the ball." When a collision between runner and fielder occurs, the umpire shall judge whether the defense has provided access to the base/plate and the offense's legitimate attempt to advance/reach in a legal fashion and without the use of flagrant or malicious contact. The specifically states that "contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate...The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate)."  The penalties for flagrant collisions are similar to that of NFHS MC.

NCAA recognizes that if a runner's path to the base is blocked, "unavoidable contact" may occur and may qualify as obstruction pursuant to Rule 2-54 (but not if the fielder is in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball).

Therefore, it is clear the present order (e.g., circa 2013 season) of HP collision tolerance is, from least restrictive to most restrictive, OBR => NCAA => NFHS.

It remains to be seen, however, whether OBR will surpass NCAA restrictions in actively requiring, as opposed to simply encouraging its catchers not to block the plate.

Close Call of the Week: NHL Overtime Penalty Strength

Last night, a CCS follower asked a question about NHL overtime rules, specifically how on-ice strength is determined during the extra 4x4 period when one or both teams suffers two or more concurrent or subsequent penalties, as was the case during Tuesday's Kings-Ducks freeway rivalry game, decided in a shootout.

The Play: With just 29 seconds remaining in regulation of a 2-2 game, Kings RW Justin Williams received a two-minute minor for slashing against Corey Perry, giving Anaheim a power play to end the third period. The score still tied, the teams headed to overtime and four-on-four skating, only with the Kings down to three due to the wraparound Williams penalty. 27 seconds into the five-minute overtime period, Perry drew another penalty, a slash by Kings defenseman Willie Mitchell, who joined Williams in LA's penalty box.

Question: Is Anaheim allowed to skate with five during the overtime two-man advantage?

NHL's Table 20 - Rule 84 - Overtime Penalties

Short Answer: Yes, Anaheim is awarded a fifth skater because Los Angeles is obliged to add one skater to bring its on-ice strength up to three. (LAK 2 + 1 = 3 / ANA 4 + 1 = 5)

Explanation and References: According to NHL Rule 84 regarding overtime and Table 20 regarding overtime penalty assessment, once a team receives a second minor penalty, each team must add one player to their on-ice strength. For Los Angeles, adding one player effectively increases on-ice strength from two to three while for Anaheim, this increases on-ice strength from four-to-five. The reason for this is that no team shall skate with an on-ice strength of less than three skaters.

Bonus: Playing five-on-three, the Ducks received a minor penalty at 1:24 due to Dustin Penner's interference against Jarret Stoll, creating a four-on-three situation. When LAK Williams' penalty expired at 1:31 and he exited the penalty box, the teams skated four-on-four even though each team had one player serving a penalty. The rules state play shall continue four-on-four, but at the next stoppage of play (prior to the expiration of either penalty), the strength shall be adjusted to three-on-three, the standard procedure for coincidental minor penalties during overtime. In this situation, the Kings skated four-on-three when Mitchell's penalty expired at 2:27 while both teams returned to full strength (4x4 for OT) when Penner's penalty expired at 3:24.

Winter Baseball Ejection Update, November 2013

Offseason winter baseball leagues produced the following ejections during the month of November, 2013:

HP Umpire Tom Honec: Toros del Este Manager Orlando Merced for arguing a ball call (D, 11/30)^
1B Umpire Felipe Romero: Mayos de Navojoa SS Jose Chavez for arguing an out call (M, 11/27)
2B Umpire Gabrial Alfonzo: Aguilas del Zulia 2B Jose Pirela for arguing a strike call (V, 11/27)
HP Umpire Oscar Marin: Algodoneros de Guasave 1B Mark Hamilton for arguing a strike three call (M, 11/24)
1B Umpire Delfin Colon ejected Indios de Mayaguez Manager Carlos Baerga; out call, (RC, 11/24)`
1B Umpire Demian Hernandez: Yaquis de Obregon LF Doug Clark & Manager Eddy Diaz; out call (M, 11/24)
HP Umpire Trent Thomas: Canberra Cavalry Manager Michael Collins for arguing balls & strikes (ABL, 11/22)
HP Umpire Carlos Rey: Indios de Mayaguez Manager Carlos Baerga for arguing balls & strikes (RC, 11/22)
HP Umpire Delfin Colon: Criollos de Caguas 3B Andy Gonzalez & Manager Pedro Lopez; strike 3 (RC, 11/21)`
HP Umpire Charlie Rivera: Leones de Ponce DH Ivan De Jesus & Mgr Carmelo Martinez; strike 3 (RC, 11/21)
3B Umpire Santo Castillo: Aguilas Cibaenas Manager Felix Fermin; check swing strike (D, 11/21)
HP Umpire Domingo Polanco: Tigres del Licey Manager Mike Guerrero for arguing a strike call (D, 11/21)
HP Umpire Luis Gonzalez: Tiburones de La Guaira DH Alex Cabrera & Mgr Tony DeFrancesco; K 3 (V, 11/20)
3B Umpire Marco Nava: Naranjeros de Hermosillo Manager Matias Carrillo Sr.; check swing strike (M, 11/18)
HP Umpire Ryan Blakney ejected Leones del Caracas pitcher Angel Calero; balls and strikes (V, 11/17)^
HP Umpire Pat Hoberg: Surprise Saguaros CF Tyler Naquin; strike three call, (AFL, 11/14)^

*AFL = Arizona Fall, ABL = Australian, D = Dominican, M = Mexicana del Pacifico, RC = Roberto Clemente (Puerto Rico), V = Venezuelan*

^Signifies MiLB (Rookie, A [+/-], AA or AAA) umpire. `Delfin Colon is a former MiLB call-up umpire (08-09).