Ejection 052 - Adrian Johnson Ejects KC's Mike Matheny After Check Swing Strike Call on Merrifield
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2021
- 1B Umpire Adrian Johnson ejected Royals manager Mike Matheny after a check swing strike two call during Whit Merrifield's at-bat on a pitch that hit the batter's hand. Report: www.closecallsports.com/2021/...
- กีฬา
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Good call. Bad circumstances, but good call
this
Got it exactly right
Great job on your channel! I love watching ejections and rules broken down so it's simple enough for an old guy like me to understand
I could see this either way. But the highlight of this is a team actually painting their helmets for throwback night. You dont see that very often.
@@smh95826 I just mean a lot of throwback games have the teams use their standard helmets and it just looks off.
And that has to do with the call how?
@@artheriford absolutely nothing. It is just nice to see
Kansas City Baby!!
The umpires did nothing wrong. The hitter struck at the ball in self defense. It sucks and maybe we could have a discussion about a possible rule change in the future, but at the end of the day, the hitter did strike at the baseball.
"The hitter struck at the ball in self defense"
That's an...interesting interpretation.
If you look at the bat, it stays parallel to his upper body until after the ball had hit him. That's not "striking at the ball"-that's turning your body to try and get out of the way, and the bat followed along.
@@almostfm thats a fair interpretation, and after watching I definitely see where you're coming from. I still have a swing on this though.
I gotta give credit to Whit Merrifield. He wore one on the hand, and then continued the AB and grinded the count to 2-2 before flying out. I wouldn't want to bat anymore after having my knuckles get smashed like that.
Maybe the announcers were confused as to which sport was being played. In cricket, the hand holding the bat is considered to be part of the bat (Law 5.6.2.2). Unfortunately for the announcer, I’m not seeing any wickets out there.
I can sense your appreciation for Hud. I too love him in the booth. Just a killer hire for the royals
Announcers sh ok uld be required to take the same test umpires do. The hands are not part of the bat.
Their a bunch of IDIOTS!!! They truly have no clue about the rules!!!
@@Downsouthroots I’m going to make a statement that I have zero evidence for. Most color guys are ex players right? Does that mean most players don’t know rules or do we only find dumbass ex players who don’t know rules? I’m by Chicago and both color guys are former players.
@@Niel2760 After many years of umpiring, I can confidently say players at all levels do not have a good understanding of most of the rules.
Rex Hudler ("the hand is part of the bat" is unlistenable. And he played 13 years in the Bigs. Wow.
I watch every Royals game that they’ll let me watch. Part of that is because I’m a Royals fan the other part is because I love listening to Hudler. He isn’t the smartest guy alive but he is a lot of fun.
@@InformalGreeting old Expos’ fan here....Same thing with watching him as a player...Rex did not seem to be too bright, but hot damn, he was the type of guy that would throw his body around to make a play...loved watching him play
This idiot said my favorite line. "The hands are part of the bat." Haven't heard that one in years. Nice job, announcer guy.
im waiting for the, tie goes to the runner explanation! or for the you have to slide on a close play explanation
There’s no such thing as a tie
@@2deepdowntherabbithole176 im well aware and my comment is sarcastic in nature cause these clowns 🤡 have no clue wtf they are talking about. hand is part of the bat, tie goes to the runner. you know, shit the moron fan yells at a little game!
The hand isn't part of the bat.
Actually a good call, just bad luck for Whit. But he didn't give up after that which shows how much an athlete he is.
@Black Bear yeah, you're right, that was a mistake. But as for maturity, I always thought of him as one of the better examples...
What about the umpire tossing David Ross earlier today in the cubs game?
There's another entry already up.
those jerseys are tight though
oh god the hand part i cannot stand that... i had coach try to agure barrel of bat went through zone the problem is her barreal of bat is poting down at ground not holding it for her normal "swing" and or bunt" i had to call 9-10 year old on attempt hit like the one above. called it dead ball but strike
In what POSSIBLE WAY is turning away from someone who is currently screaming in your face "baiting" them?? That's some bully mental gymnastics right there, fucking gross.
he swung
Bro, umps have absolutely baited managers and players. I DON'T SEE IT HERE, but come on man.
Yes!
It was a good call but I don't get why they tossed mattheny. I don't blame him for yelling at the umpire after he got tossed.
I didn't know that Nike sponsored the Kansas City Monarchs.
Zeus sponsored the league as well
Bat came around and crossed the front of the plate. Strike.. regardless that he was hit, he technically swung
By that logic, a batter scooting their feet backwards to avoid a ball pitched inside, should they accidentally bring the bat across the plate, would be a strike. That's not "technically a strike," as "swinging" three feet above the ball couldn't be reasonably be considered striking at the pitch. They'd call it a ball regardless of the bat crossing the plate, unless their name was Angel Hernandez.
@@mja2001 I love how my only argument is being angel now 🤣 but imo if the pitch is thrown and the bat crosses the plate within a second or two of the ball, then it's a strike.
There's just too much room for cheating if you let batters take first after swinging and being hit
@@mja2001 scoot your feet back all you want, but as soon as your bat crosses the front of the plate, it's a strike.
@@OrionARS Really? Can you point out the rule that says that?
@@almostfm sure its judgement call by the umpire
Here's a question for all you xperts. How come ballplayers don't wear padded gloves like hockey or cricket?
its likely not design for basball/softball and have batter grip with batter gloves for bat or no batter gloves
Not sure why so many are saying this was the correct call. Batter did not even come close to completing his swing. He had barely started the swing and then pulled the bat into his body and turned to try to get out of the way. No way that's a swing. His body turning to avoid the ball was what brought the bat across the plate. It was not at all an "attempt."
I wish I could include a still image here as right at the 1:00 mark, you can see that the bat did, in fact pass through the strike zone and is actually in front of the plate. I don't care if you think it was done in avoidance. The bat came forward and passed through the strike zone. That would be like trying to say that a ball striking the bat while in the batter's set position over his shoulder is not a foul.
@@harty3113 Nope. his hands were never farther than a foot from his body. Watch it frame by frame and you'll see his actual swing stopped, but his body kept moving. And your foul ball example is a terrible one.
@@dgj70094 You didn't listen to Gil's commentary apparently. The definition says nothing about the bat passing through the zone. It calls it an "attempt." This was not an attempt.
@@MaydayAggro Absolutely, I heard it and he was in the act of swinging when it occurred. The call was made and it is what it is.
Easy for the crew to say the ump was baiting Mike. I don’t buy that. Clearly Mike said something.
Swing
Incorrect call. A ball at the chest, no "swing" should be called as almost any attempt to move out of the way may look like a swing or offering at the ball. No logic, bad call. Unless you see FULL extension of those arms, he's strictly defensive and not offering at the pitch.
What video were you looking at and what the hell does "at the chest" have to do with anything/ Where in the rule book does it say "FULL extension of those arms"? The 1B umpire's only job here is to rule whether or not the batter swung. Nothing else. Not how high the pitch was, not full extension of anything. Only if the batter offered at the ball. Quit making shit up and foisting your own crackpot way of interpreting the rules. Have you ever even been an umpire?
@@garygemmell3488 The rulebook definition of a strike is a pitch that "Is struck at by the batter and is missed"
A batter doesn't have to have _full_ extension of the arms" to strike at the ball, but there is no way to "strike at" or "offer at" the pitch with your arms in that position. If you don't believe me, try it-hold a bat and have someone soft-toss you a tennis ball, and try and swing at it from that position.
And before you ask what I'm sure you think is the argument-winning question, yes I have been an umpire.
@@almostfm he offer he attempt to swing and hold back that is strike all day long. the swinging check swing is still judgement call you aren't going by the proper ruling you're going by what you want
@@almostfm Quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've ever read about a check swing. Every thing you just said is stupid. There is no rulebook definition of a checked swing strike. The bottom line is that the base umpire(s) have a job to to do with each pitch. A part of that is being prepared to be asked for a ruling on a check swing. Any umpire who is of any value will already have answered that question based upon what he saw regardless of what's happening with the ball. The question is simple: did the batter offer at the pitch. All this other crap is immaterial. Who cares whether the pitch was at chest level, who cares where his arms were. Did he offer at the pitch? That's all that counts. If, in your judgement, he didn't then so be it. Don't try to justify your opinion about a highly subjective call with objective twaddle about arms and chests. Did he go or not? I say he did, you say he didn't. The guy who made the ruling had the best view and made his call.
@Chris Smith Rule 5.0(c): (c) The pitcher shall deliver the pitch to the batter who may elect
to strike the ball, or who may not offer at it, as he chooses.
Anyone with any command of the English language will see that "strike the ball" is interchangeable with "offer". They could have written : "The pitcher shall deliver the pitch to the batter who may elect
to strike the ball, or who may not elect to strike the ball, as he chooses."
Offering at the ball is an attempt to strike it. Pretty cut and dried to me. Now, are you going to try and twist this around?
Personally Gil i just can't really watch baseball anymore with these announcers which is downright sad.
No. Not a swing. Not even close
First off, we have no camera view to know what Matheny may have or may not have done or said. So I love his comments, when you have no idea.
M W
A O
G R
I D
C S
This guy is the Ben Shapiro of baseball videos
Depending on whose reading this, you could be complimenting him or insulting him...I’m looking forward to finding out which it is!
The hand is a part of the bat???? How do these babbling idiots not know the rules of the sport they make their living off of? The batter started too swing and checked it which allows the HP umpire to ask for help from the 1B. The 1B umpires sole job at that moment is to rule on the check swing. After that every thing that follows is dictated by rule.
@Chris Smith Yes, he could have. And he would have had an argument with the other side for not asking for help from the base umpire. Either way there will be an argument both here and on the field. MLB umpires get way more grief for not asking than when they do ask. That being the case I'm asking on any check swing that is even close to being a swing if I'm a MLB umpire.
In my opinion that was a terrible call. Do we really believe that the batter was making an attempt to hit the ball there? He had stopped swinging and was moving his hands to try and get away from ball.
he attempts to try to hit the ball then try to hold up... so yes it's a swing and yes it's a proper call base of the rules.
I agree, that's not a good call.
@@alcoraces it is good call watch how he starts he clearly wasn't expecting this pitch
@@critter2 Look at the position of his arms through the sequence-they're not in a position to strike at the ball at any time.
by rule, its absolutely 100% the right call! If he swings and the ball hits his rib cage, its a dead ball strike, thats the rule, its a terrible rule, cause the check swing is so ambiguous.
This is the kind of call that makes people hate umpires, and as Gil often says, you have to make sensible calls that are in the spirit of the game. Umpires -- although extremely talented -- have to take back control of their professional -- e.g., explain their calls to the fans, educate people to the rules, change rules that need changing, fix the replay system. This call is non-sensical, but also wrong technically, it seems, as the ball hit his hand before the bat came forward.
it isn't wrong its correct call
@@critter2 Can you explain? Isn't the play dead once the ball hits the batter? Is there an interpretation in the umpire manual? And I noticed you didn't answer the point about it being simply a ridiculous call.
Sounds like your one of those "sports guy's" that doesn't like Kansas City sports!
That’s a terrible call... ball clearly hit his hand and his bat head never went around far enough. Should have at least been reviewed
wrong on so many levels the bat did go through zone he tried to hold up to late. thats a swing. now you disagree with as you likey will with others here thats fine
@@critter2 the more I watch it it’s actually really borderline whether he swung or not the ball actually hit him before his bat head even moved the full way yet. At the end of the day it’s a judgment call tbh
@@jakedasnake7703 yup that's why i wasn't upset if you disagree but i wanted to watch it again that what i saw first time.. i hate calling these myself
'swing' needs to be more clearly defined.
@@critter2 it’s close but personally I feel like he should be on first base tho
As soon as the pitch hits him the ball is dead. Therefore, the swing on this particular play should not have been called a strike.
if you swing and the ball hits you, its a dead ball strike. so what are we talking about? fo explain!
@@CIF-pm7tk the instant the ball hits you it is dead. Was it a swing before he was hit by the pitch? If not, there’s no swing, he’s getting 1st base.
That's not this rule works dude
@@zachreese6540 tell us how it works
On that basis alone, no. Pitches hit hitters hands all the time.. Did he swing or did he not, that is the contention of the call
Was clearly hit by pitch bullshit call
They called it on the swing not a foul ball
You are absolutely right, 1000% the pitch hit him. He also was judged to have offered at the pitch, which takes precedence, by rule. Read them sometime. You might learn something.