MLB Ejection 003 - Vic Carapazza (1; Dylan Moore)

[Lindsay]

2B Umpire Vic Carapazza ejected Mariners bench player Dylan Moore (check swing no-call by 1B Umpire Adam Hamari and HBP Replay Review during Ramón Laureano's at-bat) in the top of the 3rd inning of the #Guardians-#Mariners game. With none out and none on, Laureano attempted to check his swing on a 1-2 changeup from Mariners pitcher Emerson Hancock, ruled a fair ball by HP Umpire Mark Ripperger who adjudged that the pitched ball hit Laureano's bat and bounced into fair territory, resulting in an out, and ruled "no swing" on appeal by 1B Umpire Hamari. Upon Replay Review as the result of a challenge by Guardians manager Stephen Vogt, the call was overturned to a hit-by-pitch, as the baseball was ruled to have first made contact with Laureano's hand; due to Hamari's "no swing" call, the result of the play was a hit-by-pitch with Laureano awarded first base (as opposed to a dead ball strike [strike three]). At the time of the ejection, the Mariners were leading, 4-0.

This is Vic Carapazza (19)'s 1st ejection of 2024.

This is the 3rd ejection report of the 2024 MLB regular season.

This is the 3rd player ejection of 2024. Prior to ejection, Moore did not appear in this game.

This is Seattle's 1st ejection of 2023, 1st in the AL West (SEA 1; HOU, LAA, OAK, TEX 0).

This is Dylan Moore's 1st career MLB ejection.

This is Vic Carapazza's 1st ejection since August 7, 2023 (Matt Quatraro; QOC = U]).

Wrap: Cleveland Guardians vs Seattle Mariners, 4/1/23 | Video as follows:

Alternate Link: Carapazza runs Moore from dugout after check swing, Replay overturn to HBP

View the full article

[The Man in Blue]

Ooof.  I was laughing at the challenge, assuming it was going to be a dead ball, strike 3.  

[Velho]

Replay that isn't trying to get the call right is worse than no replay at all

[The Man in Blue]

That has long been my standing objection to the way replay is used in any sport.  It should be all or nothing, get the call right . . . not find the loopholes and technicalities to get ahead.

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

to the way replay is used in any sport.

In “any” sport, you say? “Get the call right”, you say? 🧐 

What sayz you to a replay in NCAA / NBA basketball, where there’s a question as to who’s possession it should be on an out-of-bounds call… the replay clearly shows a (missed) foul wherein the blue-jersey player slapped and propelled the red-jersey player’s hand… to touch the ball last before it went out of bounds. According to replay, blue team’s ball. Right call? 

We can scrutinize these calls in super high definition detail, ad nauseam – at some point, the system breaks. 

[dumbdumb]

And until every subjective or objective call in anything that uses human judgement is zoomed in like a line call in tennis for a 100% objective call to be made for everything, there will still be misses no matter how objectively the rules are written.

And just fire anyone every time one is missed so that everyone in the world gets at least one opportunity to be an official and maybe 2 or 3 times in their lifetime.

[Velho]

Diverging slightly... MLB has room for things that are easier to implement than robo-umps (and that will still be necessary with robo-umps). Watch cricket and you see a great solution for foul balls using audio for example.

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, MadMax said:

In “any” sport, you say? “Get the call right”, you say? 🧐 

What sayz you to a replay in NCAA / NBA basketball, where there’s a question as to who’s possession it should be on an out-of-bounds call… the replay clearly shows a (missed) foul wherein the blue-jersey player slapped and propelled the red-jersey player’s hand… to touch the ball last before it went out of bounds. According to replay, blue team’s ball. Right call? 

We can scrutinize these calls in super high definition detail, ad nauseam – at some point, the system breaks. 

I don't know squat about basketball, so I'm not sure if that was serious or sarcasm . . . 😁

Agreed on the high-def ad nauseum point.  I am saying when it is something where a specific point is looked at while another obvious specific point is ignored is . . . well, ignorant.

[MadMax]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

I don't know squat about basketball, so I'm not sure if that was serious or sarcasm

I could have used the NFL example, too… the infamous one involving the Saints(?), in the playoffs, wherein the video review was to check for a catch, and what it revealed, in glaring detail, was “blatant” pass interference… that can’t, by rule, be assessed and penalized post-facto. 

At what point does HD video technology augment organic judgement – like a sixth sense – or… supplant (ie. replace) it?

[The Man in Blue]

Here is my "step-backward" proposal:

Allow expressed challenges of the play, not the call.  Everything is on the table.  In other words, the coach must provide a reason to review the play, but anything seen in the review is on the table.  We aren't "micro-scrubbing in HD" and then ignoring a glaring mistake. 

[Velho]

27 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Allow expressed challenges of the play, not the call. 

This is a great distinction and framing of how replays work currently.

[BLWizzRanger]

42 minutes ago, MadMax said:

I could have used the NFL example, too… the infamous one involving the Saints(?), in the playoffs, wherein the video review was to check for a catch, and what it revealed, in glaring detail, was “blatant” pass interference… that can’t, by rule, be assessed and penalized post-facto. 

At what point does HD video technology augment organic judgement – like a sixth sense – or… supplant (ie. replace) it?

Yeah, lets let AI learn the subtleties of when holding is not holding or a catch is not a catch.  Matthew Boderick and WOPR almost started a nuclear war on less ambiguity.

[MadMax]

8 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Yeah, lets let AI learn the subtleties of when holding is not holding or a catch is not a catch. 

Don’t misread me, good sir… I’m not an endorser or embracer of AI. 

#BeatTheMachine

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

Don’t misread me, good sir… I’m not an endorser or embracer of AI. 

#BeatTheMachine

As someone whose career and living is cybersecurity, I neither embrace nor resist it - I simply accept that it's here, so I'm gonna deal with it.

Working on an AI Policy right now.

Rule #1 - AI drives recommendations, not decisions...humans are responsible for the final outcome.

That is, when your GPS leads you to drive your car into a lake, that's on you, not the computer.

[dumbdumb]

You guys do know there is some heat technology out there that was shown on a MLB game, may have even been a playoff game, where the ball hit the toe of the batters instep on the shoe but the umps said the batter was not hit.

It was either a Pitch that barely touched him or a foul ball hit off his instep.

That technology is there but it is not being used. Probably because an over 10 billion dollar industry cannot justify the cost.

Sorry I cannot find that old picture that use to be out there.

 

 

 

 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

You guys do know there is some heat technology out there that was shown on a MLB game, may have even been a playoff game, where the ball hit the toe of the batters instep on the shoe but the umps said the batter was not hit.

This? http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/beltreIR.html

[The Man in Blue]

Ooh!!!  I’m looking forward to the new line of umpiring gear that will allow for that!
 

[Velho]

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

6 hours ago, Velho said:

This? http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/beltreIR.html

Ok, so the ball creates friction with the batter's shoe which generates heat which can then be detected with an IR camera. Doesn't the ball also create friction with the ground and generate heat? This is clearly hitting the batter's foot. I'm just wondering how definitive it is...

~Dawg

[dumbdumb]

7 hours ago, Velho said:

This? http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/beltreIR.html

yep that works, thanks, and here is the game version that i finally found on youtube. go to 3:38.28.

layne, gibson, marquez, kulpa, barrett, cedarstrom working the game