MLB Ejection 200 - Tripp Gibson (2; David Ross)

[Lindsay]

3B Umpire Tripp Gibson ejected Cubs manager David Ross (balk no-calls on White Sox pitcher Lane Ramsey) in the bottom of the 6th of the #WhiteSox-#Cubs game. Ross was ejected during the inning break following Ramsey's 6th inning appearance, alleging that Ramsey's routine in coming set constituted a balk; however, a review of the balk rules suggest that because Ramsey's rocking movements concluded with a definitive stop point in coming Set—and the pitcher did definitively stop in Set Position prior to starting his delivery, the no-call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the game was tied, 3-3. The White Sox ultimately won the contest, 5-3.

This is Tripp Gibson (73)'s 2nd ejection of 2023.

This is the 200th ejection report of the 2023 MLB regular season.

This is the 91st manager ejection of 2023. Ejection Tally: 91 Managers, 80 Players, 29 Coaches.

This is Chicago's 8th ejection of 2023, 3rd in the NL Central (PIT, STL 10; CHC, MIL 8; CIN 7).

This is David Ross' 5th ejection of 2023, 1st since July 9 (Alex MacKay; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Tripp Gibson's 2nd ejection of 2023, 1st since June 30 (Jose Castro; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

We also reviewed a potential case of base coach interference (illegal assist) during the Mariners-Royals game in Kansas City.

Wrap: Chicago White Sox vs Chicago Cubs, 8/15/23 | Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Potential base coach assist in SEA-KC and then Ross ejected for non-balk in CHC

View the full article

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, Lindsay said:

3B Umpire Tripp Gibson ejected Cubs manager David Ross (balk no-calls on White Sox pitcher Lane Ramsey) in the bottom of the 6th of the #WhiteSox-#Cubs game. Ross was ejected during the inning break following Ramsey's 6th inning appearance, alleging that Ramsey's routine in coming set constituted a balk; however, a review of the balk rules suggest that because Ramsey's rocking movements concluded with a definitive stop point in coming Set—and the pitcher did definitively stop in Set Position prior to starting his delivery, the no-call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the game was tied, 3-3. The White Sox ultimately won the contest, 5-3.

This is Tripp Gibson (73)'s 2nd ejection of 2023.

 

This is the 200th ejection report of the 2023 MLB regular season.

This is the 91st manager ejection of 2023. Ejection Tally: 91 Managers, 80 Players, 29 Coaches.

This is Chicago's 8th ejection of 2023, 3rd in the NL Central (PIT, STL 10; CHC, MIL 8; CIN 7).

This is David Ross' 5th ejection of 2023, 1st since July 9 (Alex MacKay; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

This is Tripp Gibson's 2nd ejection of 2023, 1st since June 30 (Jose Castro; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).

 

We also reviewed a potential case of base coach interference (illegal assist) during the Mariners-Royals game in Kansas City.

Wrap: Chicago White Sox vs Chicago Cubs, 8/15/23 | Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Potential base coach assist in SEA-KC and then Ross ejected for non-balk in CHC

View the full article

You missed the rule that Ross wanted enforced literally which it has not been going back as far as Mariano Rivera who came set in one co co co continuous motion without complaint by anyone. The rule has no balk but as evidenced in other CCS posts there can be a balk if the pitcher stops coming set. Most umpires would judge this and other pitchers as in continuous motion and without interruption. There are some amateur untrained umps who would enforce the rule literally. "Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and in one continuous motion."

Show less

[Jimurray]

My post above is correct as far as rules go but it is now known that Ross was upset with a different missed balk. The pitcher was settling in on the rubber and looked like he was comfortable but after about a second he picked up his pivot foot to readjust. We allow pitchers to get comfortable on the rubber as they settle in and fidget but this was a one off move after the pitcher looked settled in. Easily balked or ignored. In this case while the umps might have seen it and were processing whether to call it, Napoli, 1BC, yelled that it was a balk which usually pisses off umps because now they can't call it because it looks like the offense told them to call it.

[SeeingEyeDog]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

...which usually pisses off umps because now they can't call it because it looks like the offense told them to call it.

Cannot agree more and it's long past time that yelling BALK! should be considered unsportsmanlike as they do in football when a receiver gets up and makes the flag gesture because they think they were violated...and then that gets flagged.

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

I know I am in the minority here ... or even on an island by myself ... but I have long disagreed with the notion that the leg lifts (even though the foot doesn't leave the ground) are NOT motions "naturally associated with [the] pitch."

When that leg starts to move, it is a motion naturally associated with his pitch.  Just because he stops before the foot comes up doesn't mean it does not look the same.  How do I know when he is going to go into a motion?  One twitch?  Two twitches?  Sixteen twitches?  Next pitch, no twitches? 

It is also irrelevant if he does it "every time" since pitchers are not required to use a singular or consistent motion.

Like I said ... on an island on this one.

[The Man in Blue]

On 8/16/2023 at 9:38 AM, Jimurray said:

There are some amateur untrained umps who would enforce the rule literally. "Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and in one continuous motion."

I find it amusing that you say that.  What the hell is the point of even having the rule book then?  If we are just going to "train" people to do it against what the rule says anyway ... I mean, all the cool kids do it.

That is what the rule says.  Shifting back and forth is not a singular, continuous motion.

Again ... on an island ... shouting at clouds ... I know.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

I find it amusing that you say that.  What the hell is the point of even having the rule book then?  If we are just going to "train" people to do it against what the rule says anyway ... I mean, all the cool kids do it.

That is what the rule says.  Shifting back and forth is not a singular, continuous motion.

Again ... on an island ... shouting at clouds ... I know.

You are free to balk a Mariano Rivera emulant in your games especially if the participants are put at a disadvantage and don't know if the pitcher is set or still coming set. I haven't encountered any participants that did not know what the pitcher was doing yet even at some pretty low level baseball. Except for some clueless umpires who had no feel or nuance for the game and read a book. And I'm the guy that wants them to read the book with guidance, What's the point of going to Law School. Just read the books.

[SeeingEyeDog]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I know I am in the minority here ... or even on an island by myself ... but I have long disagreed with the notion that the leg lifts (even though the foot doesn't leave the ground) are NOT motions "naturally associated with [the] pitch."

When that leg starts to move, it is a motion naturally associated with his pitch.  Just because he stops before the foot comes up doesn't mean it does not look the same.  How do I know when he is going to go into a motion?  One twitch?  Two twitches?  Sixteen twitches?  Next pitch, no twitches? 

It is also irrelevant if he does it "every time" since pitchers are not required to use a singular or consistent motion.

Like I said ... on an island on this one.

What is particularly troublesome about these guys with "rocking" type deliveries is even within my market there are umpires who will and won't call this kind of movement a balk. So, sometimes the kid is getting balked and sometimes he isn't and yet, the coaches continue to allow their pitchers to do it. I guess part of their game strategy is..."hoping today's umpire won't call that"? I guess? Either that, or they simply don't know the rules...which we know is ALWAYS a possibility.

Goodness knows there are things umpires do that can't always be explained but, as a coach, why would you permit guys on your pitching staff to do this? If it's part of their strategy to confuse runners, why aren't they coaching ALL of their pitchers to do it? When it's a pre-season scrimmage and I see it, I'll talk to the coach between innings and tell him it's a balk. Once we're in the season, I'm calling a balk. Of course, not everybody I work in pre-season is the same as those I work during the season...their mileage is going to vary, it seems.

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

What is particularly troublesome about these guys with "rocking" type deliveries is even within my market there are umpires who will and won't call this kind of movement a balk. So, sometimes the kid is getting balked and sometimes he isn't and yet, the coaches continue to allow their pitchers to do it. I guess part of their game strategy is..."hoping today's umpire won't call that"? I guess? Either that, or they simply don't know the rules...which we know is ALWAYS a possibility.

Goodness knows there are things umpires do that can't always be explained but, as a coach, why would you permit guys on your pitching staff to do this? If it's part of their strategy to confuse runners, why aren't they coaching ALL of their pitchers to do it? When it's a pre-season scrimmage and I see it, I'll talk to the coach between innings and tell him it's a balk. Once we're in the season, I'm calling a balk. Of course, not everybody I work in pre-season is the same as those I work during the season...their mileage is going to vary, it seems.

~Dawg

First of all where in the rule does it say it’s a balk if you do not come set without interruption and with continuous action? Yes we do balk a start stop as a balk if you judge that but it’s not in the rule either. If you have a pitcher suave as Mariano Rivera that has some stutter steps to a stop and the whole world knows when he’s set leave it alone. If you have a pitcher where the whole world except you knows when he’s set leave it alone also. Some umpires are book without nuance. You have to have both. 

[SeeingEyeDog]

7 hours ago, Jimurray said:

First of all where in the rule does it say it’s a balk if you do not come set without interruption and with continuous action? Yes we do balk a start stop as a balk if you judge that but it’s not in the rule either. If you have a pitcher suave as Mariano Rivera that has some stutter steps to a stop and the whole world knows when he’s set leave it alone. If you have a pitcher where the whole world except you knows when he’s set leave it alone also. Some umpires are book without nuance. You have to have both. 

If a guy is rocking around and comes FULL SET, of course that is not a balk and I am not calling a balk. (Although, idiot coaches will yell for a balk there, too...let them yell, if we see it we'll call it.) If, however, a guy is rocking around and does not come full set, I have a balk and I am calling a balk. What is and what is not discernable? There is a lot of gray between those two things where we have to umpire.

~Dawg

[Umpire in Chief]

I personally despise all the changes to pitching allowing the hybrid stance, the be pitch dancing like in this example. 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Umpire in Chief said:

I personally despise all the changes to pitching allowing the hybrid stance, the be pitch dancing like in this example. 

I'm confused. The OP pitcher is in the set. "Hybrid" refers to a windup pitching stance. There has been no change to the OBR rule other than the "declaration" addition. OBR pitchers have been angled or sideways for years.

[SeeingEyeDog]

3 hours ago, Umpire in Chief said:

I personally despise all the changes to pitching allowing the hybrid stance, the be pitch dancing like in this example. 

I completely agree, Chief. My Dad used to do scrutineering for SCCA race cars at our local track. We talked a lot about the comparisons of umpiring a baseball game and inspecting a race car. He said auto racing is won and lost in the theoretical area of the rulebook where the race team engineers are working to make the cars as fast as possible, while the officials are trying to enforce the written rules in the name of safety and minimizing risk.

I think pitcher's deliveries are in the same category. Balks exist because without them, we know runners would unfairly be deceived but, that's not going to stop coaches and pitchers from nibbling around the edges of the written rules to "engineer" deception when and where they can which is why we get this rocking garbage and other fringe acts.

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

I completely agree, Chief. My Dad used to do scrutineering for SCCA race cars at our local track. We talked a lot about the comparisons of umpiring a baseball game and inspecting a race car. He said auto racing is won and lost in the theoretical area of the rulebook where the race team engineers are working to make the cars as fast as possible, while the officials are trying to enforce the written rules in the name of safety and minimizing risk.

I think pitcher's deliveries are in the same category. Balks exist because without them, we know runners would unfairly be deceived but, that's not going to stop coaches and pitchers from nibbling around the edges of the written rules to "engineer" deception when and where they can which is why we get this rocking garbage and other fringe acts.

~Dawg

You do realize that Ross was not upset about the rocking to come set? It was clarified the next day with video of a balkable reset of the pitcher's pivot foot as he settled in on the rubber that was not balked. CCS never corrects errors in their analyses.

[SeeingEyeDog]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

You do realize that Ross was not upset about the rocking to come set? It was clarified the next day with video of a balkable reset of the pitcher's pivot foot as he settled in on the rubber that was not balked. CCS never corrects errors in their analyses.

Can we only discuss things that actually happened? I'm confused here...

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

25 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Can we only discuss things that actually happened? I'm confused here...

~Dawg

What actually happened was Ross was complaining about a balk not called on that pitcher when he lifted his pivot foot after engaging the rubber and 1BC Napoli yelled that it was a balk but the umps didn't call it. It was 50-50 whether you could judge it a balk. The Cubs broadcast the next day showed the clip around the top of the fifth between the 1st and 2nd batters of the inning. You are confused because CCS has not revised or corrected their assumption of the cause being an argument about how the pitcher came set. That assumption was understandable since there was no explanation that day during the game. A Youtube commenter on the CCS video provided the correction the next day upon which CCS should have added a clarification.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Can we only discuss things that actually happened? I'm confused here...

~Dawg

Clip for your edification: