MLB Ejections 077-78 - Stu Scheurwater (2-3; BAL x2)

[Lindsay]

HP Umpire Stu Scheurwater ejected Orioles P Darren O'Day and Manager Buck Showalter (no-stop balk call; QOCN) in the top of the 9th inning of the Mariners-Orioles game. With none out and one on (R1), Mariners batter Nelson Cruz swung at a 3-2 pitch from O'Day for a foul fly ball, ruled a balk by HP...

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

View the full article

[blue23ll]

Very odd call

[dumbdumb]

6 hours ago, blue23ll said:

Very odd call

What is odd. Please elaborate on odd part, as in you see it, you call it you explain it. Judgment call just like check swing.

[lawump]

I actually completely disagree with the UEFL's conclusion that Stu's call was incorrect.  I think its pretty clear that he never came to a complete (discernible) stop.  Now one can argue that it was a "technical" call and should not have been made (since, apparently, other umpires have not called it a balk throughout that pitcher's 11-year career).  But, by the rules, that was not an incorrect call. 

If this was 1988, Stu would have gotten yelled at by the league office for not calling it a balk.  LOL

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, lawump said:

I actually completely disagree with the UEFL's conclusion that Stu's call was incorrect.  I think its pretty clear that he never came to a complete (discernible) stop.  Now one can argue that it was a "technical" call and should not have been made (since, apparently, other umpires have not called it a balk throughout that pitcher's 11-year career).  But, by the rules, that was not an incorrect call. 

If this was 1988, Stu would have gotten yelled at by the league office for not calling it a balk.  LOL

Actually, he had a stop initially at his belt. If you perceive a stop at the top, which I didn’t, then he had a double stop and a balk. It’s deceptive since R1 can’t see the stop but if I’m facing Darren I’m telling the 3B coach to signal R1 to go once Darren starts up from his belt. That would bring things to a head depending on what Darren did once R1 was going. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Actually, he had a stop initially at his belt. If you perceive a stop at the top, which I didn’t, then he had a double stop and a balk. It’s deceptive since R1 can’t see the stop but if I’m facing Darren I’m telling the 3B coach to signal R1 to go once Darren starts up from his belt. That would bring things to a head depending on what Darren did once R1 was going. 

Upon further review, considering his leg movement after his hands together at the belt, he actually is a sideways pitcher that is in the windup after hands together and he doesn’t need to stop. But he does have to declare. So I have a balk for not declaring. Again, teams need to start running on his first move after hands together to bring things to a head. 

[lawump]

34 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Upon further review, considering his leg movement after his hands together at the belt, he actually is a sideways pitcher that is in the windup after hands together and he doesn’t need to stop. But he does have to declare. So I have a balk for not declaring. Again, teams need to start running on his first move after hands together to bring things to a head. 

He's definitely not in the windup (1) as a MLB pitcher with an R1 only and (2) looking at his feet position.  I don't see a discernible stop, period.  Is it ticky-tack?  Yeah, probably.  Other F1's have certainly gotten away with a lot more.  Is it a wrong call by rule, heck no.  

And I certainly have no patience for all the commentators on the UEFL who are slamming Stu's mechanics.  They were totally correct.

[stkjock]

8 minutes ago, lawump said:

He's definitely not in the windup (1) as a MLB pitcher with an R1 only and (2) looking at his feet position.  I don't see a discernible stop, period.  Is it ticky-tack?  Yeah, probably.  Other F1's have certainly gotten away with a lot more.  Is it a wrong call by rule, heck no.  

 

that was my first thought as less than expert

8 minutes ago, lawump said:

And I certainly have no patience for all the commentators on the UEFL who are slamming Stu's mechanics.  They were totally correct.

(typically wouldn't the HPU point when calling a balk)

 

edit - I read the comments and see the explanation for the mechanic 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, lawump said:

He's definitely not in the windup (1) as a MLB pitcher with an R1 only and (2) looking at his feet position.  I don't see a discernible stop, period.  Is it ticky-tack?  Yeah, probably.  Other F1's have certainly gotten away with a lot more.  Is it a wrong call by rule, heck no.  

And I certainly have no patience for all the commentators on the UEFL who are slamming Stu's mechanics.  They were totally correct.

So what do we have when puts his hands together at his belt and stops?  

[lawump]

20 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So what do we have when puts his hands together at his belt and stops?  

He was in that position as he was taking the signs from the catcher.  His legs were apart.  That was not his set.  That was his position as he was "stretching".

[Jimurray]

48 minutes ago, lawump said:

He was in that position as he was taking the signs from the catcher.  His legs were apart.  That was not his set.  That was his position as he was "stretching".

He took his sign from the catcher with his hand at his side. He then puts his hands together at his belt and pauses slightly before continuing to come to a stop on top. Obviously everyone knows the first stop is not his stop. I think he was balked because PU saw R1 going on previous pitches and thought that O'day was cheating on that last stop because of that. But what if R1 took off on first motion after he was stopped with hands were together at the belt and Oday picked him. Would we tell the offense that that is not his "real" stop. Of course it would not happen in MLB.

[lawump]

27 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He took his sign from the catcher with his hand at his side. He then puts his hands together at his belt and pauses slightly before continuing to come to a stop on top. Obviously everyone knows the first stop is not his stop. I think he was balked because PU saw R1 going on previous pitches and thought that O'day was cheating on that last stop because of that. But what if R1 took off on first motion after he was stopped with hands were together at the belt and Oday picked him. Would we tell the offense that that is not his "real" stop. Of course it would not happen in MLB.

In the video in the OP, at the 2:44 mark, with his hands together at his belt, his feet are apart.  Though I can't see the catcher, it appears that he is taking his signs because he then moves his non-pivot foot towards his pivot foot and arms to come set (or, in the opinion of Stu "attempt" to come set).  When his hands are at his belt, he is not set.

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, lawump said:

In the video in the OP, at the 2:44 mark, with his hands together at his belt, his feet are apart.  Though I can't see the catcher, it appears that he is taking his signs because he then moves his non-pivot foot towards his pivot foot and arms to come set (or, in the opinion of Stu "attempt" to come set).  When his hands are at his belt, he is not set.

I watched the whole inning he pitched on MLB TV. He takes his sign from the catcher with his pitching arm at his side/back. You can see the catcher give the sign. He then comes set at his  belt without a reposition of his feet. That would comply with the Set position rule and some pitchers do it that way and then pitch. But in O'Days case, everyone knows that he is going to stretch to another stop.

[lawump]

33 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I watched the whole inning he pitched on MLB TV. He takes his sign from the catcher with his pitching arm at his side/back. You can see the catcher give the sign. He then comes set at his  belt without a reposition of his feet. That would comply with the Set position rule and some pitchers do it that way and then pitch. But in O'Days case, everyone knows that he is going to stretch to another stop.

Ah, now I know the rest of the story.  I only watched the clip.  I certainly don't go out of my way to watch O's games.  LOL

[blue23ll]

17 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

What is odd. Please elaborate on odd part, as in you see it, you call it you explain it. Judgment call just like check swing.

The odd part to me what why the call was so delayed, maybe we missed someone actually calling it on the video. 

[Kevin_K]

@blue23ll... Was the call delayed? 

When I call a balk as PU I generally make no visible indication initially because I do not want to expose any more of my body than necessary.

My call will typically just be verbal until the play has completed just as it seems in this play at the 2:25 mark of the video.

[blue23ll]

6 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

@blue23ll... Was the call delayed? 

When I call a balk as PU I generally make no visible indication initially because I do not want to expose any more of my body than necessary.

My call will typically just be verbal until the play has completed just as it seems in this play at the 2:25 mark of the video.

Perhaps the other 3 umpires also only made verbal calls?

[Richvee]

I know I shouldn't be , but I'm pretty surprised Gary Thorne doesn't know its a delayed dead ball on a no stop balk. .....