MLB Ejection 083 - James Hoye (1; Don Kelly)

[Lindsay]

HP Umpire James Hoye ejected Pirates manager Don Kelly (denied ABS challenge/strike call; QOCY) in the top of the 5th inning of the #Pirates-#Brewers game. With none out and none on, Pirates batter Jacob Gonzalez took a 3-1 cutter from Brewers pitcher Logan Henderson for a called second strike, and may or may not have attempted to challenge the call via ABS. Replays indicate the pitch was located over the heart of home plate and below the midpoint (px -0.24, pz 3.40 [sz_top 3.29 / RAD 3.41]), the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Brewers were leading, 3-2. The Brewers ultimately won the contest, 4-2.

This is James Hoye (92)'s 1st ejection of 2026.

This is the 83rd ejection report of the 2026 MLB regular season.

This is the 45th manager ejection of 2026. Ejection Tally: 45 Managers, 18 Coaches, 20 Players.

This is Pittsburgh's 8th ejection of 2026, 1st in the NL Central (PIT 8; CHC 3; CIN, STL 2; MIL 0).

This is Don Kelly's 6th ejection of 2026, 1st since August 2 (Dan Bellino; QOC = U [Rain Delay]).

This is James Hoye's 1st ejection since August 27, 2025 (Hunter Goodman; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Pittsburgh Pirates vs Milwaukee Brewers, 8/4/26 | Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Kelly extends MLB ejection lead arguing correctly called strike, non-challenge

View the full article

[Velho]

Rank the below in priority of causality:

A) PU timing that hasn't adjusted to the new "challenge NOW!" environment

B) Weak low visibility batter challenge

C) PU looking at his pointing finger that reduces his vision window

D) Pirate Mgr is a [fill in pejorative of choice]

E) Everyone should just calm the heck down

[grayhawk]

D. Don Kelly is one miserable POS.

[MadMax]

When this occurred, I actually contacted @Velho with glee, since this is (er, was) an example of one of the gilded windmills with which I personally tilt. 

It's the crink in my craw, the pea under my mattress, the bug in my boo. 

My white whale is the utterly worthless, ambiguous, vapid emphasis placed on "timing" (as it relates to calling balls & strikes specifically), and its contrived insinuation as a currency, or merit badge, or compulsory check-box on an evaluation form... so as to judge (appraise, or "evaluate") proficiency, and ultimately to determine "who is better than who". 

🐴 💩.

Why aren't we appraising or evaluating based on call accuracy? What is this pedantic obsession with "timing"? 
I will argue and advocate that it's this obsession with "timing" – and, more poignantly, how it is linked to or affects the "challenge immediately" aspect of The Rule – that is causing the problem. Because U#92 took "so long" to call it a strike, F2 (Contreras) is the one that made the challenge signal, not (initially) Batter (Gonzalez). Of course, U#92 had it as a strike, and the logical conclusion is that, had Contreras known that it was a strike, he wouldn't rationally challenge it! So, thus, there isn't a challenge to grant... logically. Of course, if it truly is called a strike (which it was), after all those "stutters", then the Batter should be allowed to make a forthright challenge. Now, Kelly could be arguing that his Batter (Gonzalez) was denied a challenge, but I have a sinking suspicion that Kelly was arguing that, by the "letter of the law (rule)", that Contreras has to be charged a challenge! That, because he made the challenge signal, however erroneously or without (full) knowledge of the call (because U#92 was performing "timing" in his call), then the whole challenge theatrics has to be performed. 

Follow the rules, ya know. 

Sounds an awful lot like the NCAA adage, "Enforce it as written."

So yeah, while I would say and agree that the "challenge immediately" vernacular needs more clarity or latitude, I will also state and defend – that if we get off this obsession with "timing", we might actually start to put the onus on call accuracy. 

[dumbdumb]

just use full ABS like the umpires wanted for ball strike. use the new check swing technology for check swing or not. use the infrared technology to help with HBP or ball off the foot.

there will be a plethora of other work at the plate. keeping the count. timing infractions or not, balks or not, catchers interference or not, fair foul or not, pitcher trapping ball hit back to them or not, runners lane violation or not, safe out at the plate or not, placement of runners, etc. When ABS goes down with a tech problem, then the umpires can call the rest of the game ball/strike like they do now.

and did the SEC use the ball strike technology that we know they have, and we know they have it, to pick the best umpires ball/strike wise to call the SEC tournament. other than just go by the misses, even if un-challeged, you could tighten up the zone on who/whom you pick for the tournament by taking the distance missed on each miss ball or strike, and divide it by the total number of pitches called to get the best umpires that have the least amount of distanced missed by (DMB) and chose them to work the tournament and be the leader in this area.