MLB Ejection 043 - Dan Iassogna (2; Rocco Baldelli)

[Lindsay]

3B Umpire Dan Iassogna ejected Twins manager Rocco Baldelli (out of base path no call; QOCY) in the bottom of the 4th inning of the #Twins-#Guardians game. With none out and two on (R1, R3), Guardians batter Josh Naylor hit a ground ball to Twins third baseman Jose Miranda, who committed an error, prompting Guardians baserunner R1 Jose Ramirez to try for third base. As the return throw arrived between second and third base, Ramirez moved to his right to successfully avoid the tag, ruled not to have violated the base path rule. Replays indicate runner Ramirez did not run more than three feet away from his base path established at the time of the tag attempt to avoid being tagged, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Guardians were leading, 1-0. The Guardians ultimately won the contest, 4-3.

This Dan Iassogna (58)'s 2nd ejection of 2023.

Official Baseball Rule 5.09(b)(1) states: "Any runner is out when they run more than three feet away from their base path to avoid being tagged unless their action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base they are attempting to reach safely."

This is the 42nd ejection report of the 2023 MLB regular season.

This is the 22nd manager ejection of 2023. Ejection Tally: 22 Managers, 15 Players, 5 Coaches.

This is Minnesota's 2nd ejection of 2023, 2nd in the AL Central (CWS 3; MIN 2; KC 1; CLE, DET 0).

This is Rocco Baldelli's 2nd ejection of 2023, 1st since April 15 (James Hoye; QOC = U [Illegal Substance]).

This is Dan Iassogna's 2nd ejection of 2023, 1st since April 23 (Willson Contreras; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Minnesota Twins vs Cleveland Guardians, 5/6/23 | Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Baldelli ejected arguing about a baseline vs path call and when a fielder gained possession

View the full article

[Velho]

How do you say 'clairvoyant' in Italian?

[SeeingEyeDog]

Chiaroveggente...oh...wait, nevermind...

~Dawg

[Thunderheads]

21 hours ago, Velho said:

How do you say 'clairvoyant' in Italian?

I just now saw this video this morning and thought the same thing!!!!!!!

[BLWizzRanger]

Wait.  I am not arguing the play here. I understand when the base path is established or thought I did.  Its supposed to be when the tag is attempted, but, Lindsay is saying its when the fielder first has possession of the ball that establishes the base path?  Maybe, on this play, since the catch (or possession) of the ball and the tag is one continuous motion, does the tape measure start? what am I missing here?

[ErichKeane]

4 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Wait.  I am not arguing the play here. I understand when the base path is established or thought I did.  Its supposed to be when the tag is attempted, but, Lindsay is saying its when the fielder first has possession of the ball that establishes the base path?  Maybe, on this play, since the catch (or possession) of the ball and the tag is one continuous motion, does the tape measure start? what am I missing here?

I tend to agree with you on this one?  Catching the ball doesn't cause a 'tag attempt' to start, I probably have the tag-attempt starting ~1 frame later when he starts moving the glove toward the runner.

[The Man in Blue]

Why is it I think Baldelli is a 10u coach every time I see him go out to the field to talk to an umpire?

He doesn't want to face the umpire or look him in the eye because he knows he is wrong.  He wants to go out an re-enact the instant replay.  Come on coach, nobody came to watch you.

[The Man in Blue]

7 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Wait.  I am not arguing the play here. I understand when the base path is established or thought I did.  Its supposed to be when the tag is attempted, but, Lindsay is saying its when the fielder first has possession of the ball that establishes the base path?  Maybe, on this play, since the catch (or possession) of the ball and the tag is one continuous motion, does the tape measure start? what am I missing here?

 

I've seen this piece of the discussion come up only a few times and have never seen a good answer.  At what point is the tag being attempted?  We all know an attempt doesn't have to be a good attempt, but when do you consider it a tag? 

Is a fielder chasing behind a runner in a rundown a tag attempt?  How about a fielder taking a throw on a pickoff or steal and they don't know the runner is NOT there?  I would not call either of those a tag attempt.

My personal standard, is "an imminent convergence."  Sounds fancy.  I am looking for the path the runner is taking and the path the fielder is taking.  If we have a possible intersection of those two lines, now we have a tag attempt and a spot to judge the three feet allowance from.  If the fielder is never going to get to an "intersection point" then I have no tag attempt.  If the runner starts moving away from that intersection point, then we may have something.

[BLWizzRanger]

34 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Why is it I think Baldelli is a 10u coach every time I see him go out to the field to talk to an umpire?

He doesn't want to face the umpire or look him in the eye because he knows he is wrong.  He wants to go out an re-enact the instant replay.  Come on coach, nobody came to watch you.

You can't say that!  Maybe his mom is in the stands.

[dumbdumb]

ah, the beauty of baseball. even if we can decide what it is and what it isn't on the things above, good old judgment comes into play every time. just like the strike zone, even if everyone is on board with what it is and what it isn't, some are better at judging than others, as is obvious by the stats that can now be kept. heck, they were always kept, just may have been wider zone or smaller zone back over history, and everyone's judgment was different even though everyone agreed to the written strike zone and what  it was and wasn't. even if you let catchers call the zone, bet a dollar to donuts they would have different zones even though they all agreed with the defined zone and what it is or isn't.

great for an argument call, just like did it hit the hand or the bat, or did he throw at the batter or not, or did he or did he not commit runner interference going down the first base line, or did the fielder obstruct or not obstruct or the old Armbrister scramble unscramble call/no call. then the manger gets to go argue his case, which could turn into an outright rant with profanity, insults, hand gestures, bumps, showing up, and an ejection, sometimes just to fire up his team (that leads to another judgment for us at UE to decide, did he argue vehemently to fire up his team, or was it because he was really that upset at the call. can we read the managers mind even though it does not matter, for us here).

judgment is running rampant as usual, and baseball is still pretty much one of the only places where if you feel like you have been wronged, you can go let it out on the person in charge (try it with your boss, including the loudness and crudity of language, in front of everybody at work, and see where it gets you. maybe you want to throw in a bump or two just to see where that gets you at work in the process. so why do all these bad actors creating incidents at amateur player fields, not go let it out on their bosses when they disagree with them like they do on umpire.

hip hip hurray for judgment. even if the call is overturned to get the call correct, in this day and age, pity those who do not have the resources available to get the call right in the end, other than a conference only. and you know what, maybe those in the replay booth miss from time to time. go call New York, Chelsea, oh where-ever. need a dime, quarter, cell  phone?