Jump to content

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Gil

MLB Ejection 153 - Mike Everitt (3; Joe Girardi)

Recommended Posts

Gil    293

2B Umpire Mike Everitt ejected Yankees Manager Joe Girardi (retired runner's interference no-call; upheld Replay Review bona fide slide call; QOCN) in the top of the 3rd inning of the Mariners-Yankees game. With one out and one on (R1), Mariners batter Robinson Cano hit a ground ball to Yankees...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
maven    3,891

Incorrect no-call.

In FED, that's easy by rule, sometimes hard to see in practice. R1 actually commits two independent infractions there, one while a runner, one while a retired runner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoops    48

Interesting play.  I don't think the runner trying to get in the way of the throw to 2B is an infraction since it caused no hindrance.  The slide and return throw is more fuzzy, but I don't think the runner hindered the throw but obviously that is debatable.  I see Gregorious making a sloppy throw, not necessarily because of the runner.  I'm guessing that is why the call was not overturned, because the video did not have indisputable evidence that the umpire's judgement was wrong on the field and there was no rules misapplication?  

Certainly an easy INT call on the slide in FED, NCAA, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimurray    544
2 hours ago, maven said:

Incorrect no-call.

In FED, that's easy by rule, sometimes hard to see in practice. R1 actually commits two independent infractions there, one while a runner, one while a retired runner.

In OBR I don't see any hindrance in either case. I see attempts but no success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven    3,891
3 hours ago, zoops said:

I don't think the runner trying to get in the way of the throw to 2B is an infraction since it caused no hindrance.  

Good point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ElkOil    696
1 hour ago, maven said:

Good point.

With batter INT, for example, one of the criteria we use to determine if INT occurred is if the catcher's throw didn't retire a runner. Wouldn't the same be true here? Since the throw to 1B didn't retire the runner, wouldn't we call INT? After my first viewing, I could see myself making the double play call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoops    48
34 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

With batter INT, for example, one of the criteria we use to determine if INT occurred is if the catcher's throw didn't retire a runner. Wouldn't the same be true here? Since the throw to 1B didn't retire the runner, wouldn't we call INT? After my first viewing, I could see myself making the double play call.

I think he was agreeing that the runner's attempt to interfere with the throw from F3 to F6 for the first out did not lead to hindrance (the slide is a separate issue).  I know maven will be back so I'll let him fill in the rest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnnyg08    1,498

Is runner interference a live ball, delayed dead, or dead ball infraction? 

Perhaps we would need to make the call on the action inconsistent with running the bases prior to observing actual hinderance. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderheads    2,370
15 hours ago, maven said:

Incorrect no-call.

In FED, that's easy by rule, sometimes hard to see in practice. R1 actually commits two independent infractions there, one while a runner, one while a retired runner.

I don't see R1 'raising his hand' as to interfere but almost his slide mechanic (if that makes sense).   Also, ....  In FED, you have a 2 man system ...and that's almost impossible to see his attempt to get in the way of Headly's throw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noumpere    2,415
10 hours ago, ElkOil said:

With batter INT, for example, one of the criteria we use to determine if INT occurred is if the catcher's throw didn't retire a runner. Wouldn't the same be true here? Since the throw to 1B didn't retire the runner, wouldn't we call INT? After my first viewing, I could see myself making the double play call.

I think your supposition is incorrect.  Even if it's not, it's not applicable here (even if this was INT).

On BI we don't "determine if INT occurred [by seeing] if the catcher's throw didn't retire a runner."  If we see INT, we call it.  It's just that the INT is disregarded (from a dead ball standpoint) if the throw retired the runner IN SPITE OF the INT.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven    3,891
34 minutes ago, noumpere said:

On BI we don't "determine if INT occurred [by seeing] if the catcher's throw didn't retire a runner."  If we see INT, we call it.  It's just that the INT is disregarded (from a dead ball standpoint) if the throw retired the runner IN SPITE OF the INT.

As I teach it, the business about "if the throw retires a runner..." is part of the penalty, not part of the infraction. As you say, call the infraction when it occurs; consider play as part of enforcement.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ElkOil    696
2 hours ago, maven said:

As I teach it, the business about "if the throw retires a runner..." is part of the penalty, not part of the infraction. As you say, call the infraction when it occurs; consider play as part of enforcement.

So back to my other question... why wouldn't you call INT on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gil    293

Girardi has an HRA (Hat Removal Average per nine ejections) of 1.80 in 2017.

But his HRA+EKA (Excessive Kicking Average) is 5.40 in 2017.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
noumpere    2,415
20 hours ago, ElkOil said:

So back to my other question... why wouldn't you call INT on this?

He *attempted* to interfere (with the throw from F3 to F4/6).  He failed.

The slide does not rise to the level of INT in OBR (or at least in MLB).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven    3,891
18 minutes ago, noumpere said:

He *attempted* to interfere (with the throw from F3 to F4/6).  He failed.

The slide does not rise to the level of INT in OBR (or at least in MLB).

This.

Also, if you watch the very first replay, you can see that R1 is rather far from 2B when F6 throws back to 1B. The replay from the 1B side draws our eyes to the slide away from the base (which it was, and probably did not satisfy the requirements of a legal slide), but since he was so far from 2B, and got down, he did not hinder F6's throw. Had R1 been over there and gotten into F6's legs while he was throwing, there would be a case for INT.

No hindrance = no INT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×