Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Gil

MLB Ejections 060-61 - Sean Barber (1-2; Kemp, Chirinos)

Recommended Posts

HP Umpire Sean Barber ejected Dodgers LF Matt Kemp and Rangers C Robinson Chirinos (fighting after home plate collision; QOCU) in the bottom of the 3rd inning of the Rangers-Dodgers game. With two out and one on (R2), Dodgers batter Enrique Hernandez hit a ground ball to Rangers right fielder Nomar...

[[ 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

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

That's "just hard-nosed baseball" only if this is 2009. It's an illegal HP collision. Maybe MLB will drop a fine for that and send a message.

I for one do not miss those collisions one bit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

That's "just hard-nosed baseball" only if this is 2009. It's an illegal HP collision. Maybe MLB will drop a fine for that and send a message.

I for one do not miss those collisions one bit.

I have a ton of respect for you, your knowledge and opinion, however how is this play illegal?  I guess I'm a bit old school in a lot of my thinking, I see it as a hard nose play, catcher has ball and is blocking the plate.

 

from Gil's write up:

 

Quote

This is Sean Barber (29)'s first ejection of 2018.
Sean Barber now has 6 points in the UEFL Standings (2 Prev + 2*[2 AAA + 0 Irrecusable Call] = 6).
Crew Chief Bill Welke now has 3 points in Crew Division (1 Previous + 2 Irrecusable Call = 3).
*Rule 6.01(i)(2) allows the catcher to "block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score" if the catcher is in possession of the ball. As it relates to runners, Rule 6.01(i)(1) states, "If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1)." Accordingly, both players were legal and Kemp was properly declared out on Chirinos' tag. See the related post for more discussion on the two parties' responsibilities during a potential home plate collision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Gil's analysis, mainly because F2 was not blocking the pathway of the runner.

Here's where F2 gets the ball. The runner has an open lane to the plate: F2 is NOT blocking his pathway, at least, not if he's trying to score. In subsequent shots, note that F2 does NOT move his left knee: he keeps his spot, leaving the runner access to the plate. F2 does not start in the runner's pathway, nor does he subsequently move into it. It is difficult for me to see this as anything other than the runner deviating in order to cause a collision, in violation of the rule.

Screen_Shot_2018-06-14_at_12.55.05_PM.pn

In the second shot, the runner has given up on scoring, knows he's going to be retired, and chooses to truck F2 instead.

Screen_Shot_2018-06-14_at_12.55.34_PM.pn

In the very comment that Gil quotes, the first sentence reads, "The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i), or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided." That's exactly what I see here.

Screen_Shot_2018-06-14_at_12.55.50_PM.pn

Note that the collision takes place on F2's RIGHT shoulder, AWAY from the plate. That runner is not trying to reach the plate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response.

 

I disagree that F2 did not move further into the baseline once he had the ball, based on your knee comment, it's clear to me that the knee was clearly moved from the time of the catch. not a big gain of ground however there was some.  However, after watching it again I see your point about lowering the shoulder/pushing thru with the hands being an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blue23ll said:

Gil is wrong in his analysis, in my opinion.

I agree with you and @maven but when viewing the whole comment in the rule MLB might tell me I am wrong. Do the bolded sentences conflict?

"Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment: The failure by the runner to make
an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder,
or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or
arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated
from the pathway
in order to initiate contact with the catcher in
violation of Rule 6.01(i), or otherwise initiated a collision that
could have been avoided
. A slide shall be deemed appropriate,
in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs
should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the
case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid
appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact
with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable
collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1
)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

@mavenDo the bolded sentences conflict?

"Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment: The failure by the runner to make
an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder,
or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or
arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated
from the pathway
in order to initiate contact with the catcher in
violation of Rule 6.01(i), or otherwise initiated a collision that
could have been avoided
. A slide shall be deemed appropriate,
in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs
should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the
case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid
appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact
with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable
collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1
)."

I expect the interp is that the last sentence trumps: if F2 blocks the pathway of the runner, then it is NOT an avoidable (that is, illegal) collision in violation of the rule, even if the other indicators are present.

Compare: the NCAA football rule for targeting uses concepts of "launch," "upward thrust," and a few others as "indicators" of targeting. When those indicators are present, officials look for the foul itself, and often flag it. But if replay determines that there was in fact no forcible contact to the head/neck area, they'll take off the foul.

Lowering the shoulder, pushing through with hands, etc. are indicators of illegal collisions, but they don't define the infraction, which is basically a prohibition of avoidable collisions. (For FED, those same actions are indicators for, but don't define, MC.) That last sentence in the COMMENT addresses the play where F2 has cut off the runner's access to the plate, AND it's not OBS (he has the ball): because runners are never required to slide, there will be a collision, and this sentence indicates that it's not to be ruled an avoidable collision.

The analogy with targeting is apt not least because these are both rules introduced to reduce or eliminate a certain class of dangerous play from the respective games. In football, we have seen the players adjust: coaches now teach defenders to hit the "strike zone," which is basically the runner's torso; they have learned to "lower their target," and we see fewer of these plays (and accordingly fewer injuries).

I think MLB players have mostly adjusted to the collision rule as well, with runners making the more athletic move outside F2. That didn't happen in this play. As with targeting, I would have hoped for more aggressive enforcement of the rule: err on the side of safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @maven - this runner gave up on trying to score pretty early on and deviates from any reasonable path to reach the plate to go through the catcher, no matter where he is.  The path he took to hit the catcher reminds me a lot of the Posey injury (that effectively brought the new rules in). 

I'm glad to see it gone.  I thought it was just an excuse for thuggery.  You never saw someone do this to F6 while stealing second base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, maven said:

I disagree with Gil's analysis, mainly because F2 was not blocking the pathway of the runner.Note that the collision takes place on F2's RIGHT shoulder, AWAY from the plate. That runner is not trying to reach the plate.

That's the entirety of my reasoning for why the play was legal: I saw a block. If there is no block, this collision is undoubtedly illegal. Just a matter of judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gil said:

That's the entirety of my reasoning for why the play was legal: I saw a block. If there is no block, this collision is undoubtedly illegal. Just a matter of judgment.

Of course this is a matter of judgment, and we amateurs are all entitled to our opinions, such as they are.

But we generally want to err on the side of safety for infractions like this. The entire purpose of instituting the rule was to promote the safety of both catchers and runners.

Borderline cases need to be ruled illegal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 2:38 PM, beerguy55 said:

You never saw someone do this to F6 while stealing second base.

Not entirely true. We ALL remember this...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 8:04 AM, maven said:

Of course this is a matter of judgment, and "we amatuers" are all entitled to our opinions, such as they are.

But we generally want to err on the side of safety for infractions like this. The entire purpose of instituting the rule was to promote the safety of both catchers and runners.

Borderline cases need to be ruled illegal.

I take exception to the "we amateurs" portion. Everyone working games for remuneration are just as much a professional as the ones mentioned in these posts. The only difference is in the players status (receiving remuneration or not) and the speed of play involved. Each professional umpire gets to decide which type players he or she will pursue, to attempt to ply their trade with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

I take exception to the "we amateurs" portion. Everyone working games for remuneration are just as much a professional as the ones mentioned in these posts. The only difference is in the players status (receiving remuneration or not) and the speed of play involved. Each professional umpire gets to decide which type players he or she will pursue, to attempt to ply their trade with.

You're picking a fight over something where (a) we don't disagree, and (b) it's completely irrelevant to the point of the post.

  • 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


×