+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Why wasn't Suppan ejected? (/thread-6791.html)
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Andy - 07-03-2009
From the rulebook:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->(d) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.
If, in the umpire's judgment, such a violation occurs, the umpire may elect either to:
1. Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher, from the game, or
2. may warn the pitcher and the manager of both teams that another such pitch will result in the immediate expulsion of that pitcher (or a replacement) and the manager.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After Fielder and DLee were hit, the ump gave a warning to both teams.
Now Fox was hit. Wasn't Suppan supposed to be automatically ejected?
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - rok - 07-03-2009
Because the umpires hate us.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - PcB - 07-03-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47839:date=Jul 3 2009, 02:33 PM:name=Andy)-->QUOTE (Andy @ Jul 3 2009, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->From the rulebook:
<quote>(d) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, such a violation occurs, the umpire may elect either to:
1. Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher, from the game, or
2. may warn the pitcher and the manager of both teams that another such pitch will result in the immediate expulsion of that pitcher (or a replacement) and the manager.</quote>
After Fielder and DLee were hit, the ump gave a warning to both teams.
Now Fox was hit. Wasn't Suppan supposed to be automatically ejected?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I told you in the game thread. The ump has to think Suppan hit Fox intentionally. He didn't think so, so Suppan stays in the game.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Andy - 07-03-2009
I'm not a fan of "subjective".
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - CCwinwssoon - 07-03-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47841:date=Jul 3 2009, 02:34 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jul 3 2009, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Because the umpires hate us.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He sure liked us on that last pitch.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - rok - 07-03-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47887:date=Jul 3 2009, 04:42 PM:name=CCwinwssoon)-->QUOTE (CCwinwssoon @ Jul 3 2009, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47841:date=Jul 3 2009, 02:34 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 3 2009, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Because the umpires hate us.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He sure liked us on that last pitch.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was clearly a makeup call for not ejecting Suppan earlier. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Clapp - 07-03-2009
Definitely not intentional, I would've been furious if I were a Brewers fan and they tossed him.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Lance - 07-03-2009
What is amusing to me is that Zambrano obviously wasn't trying to hit Fielder and Suppan purposely hit Lee. So why do they have to warn both teams? Seems the Cubs should get a freebie there. I know that's fantasyland--but the whole warning thing is just ridiculous--it's meaningless.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Kid - 07-03-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47846:date=Jul 3 2009, 03:39 PM:name=Andy)-->QUOTE (Andy @ Jul 3 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm not a fan of "subjective".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. By leaving it to the umpires, you can get some obviously bad discretionary determinations. But at the same time, are you going to make ejection mandatory in all cases? What about a situation where, after a warning, a pitcher accidentally hits a batter with a slow breaking ball when the bases are loaded and a run scores. Obviously no question it's not intentional, but that would still require a "subjective" determination by the umpire.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - BT - 07-03-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47887:date=Jul 3 2009, 04:42 PM:name=CCwinwssoon)-->QUOTE (CCwinwssoon @ Jul 3 2009, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47841:date=Jul 3 2009, 02:34 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jul 3 2009, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Because the umpires hate us.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He sure liked us on that last pitch.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cbssportsline's pitch chart said it was a ball. It was way to close to take, but after I saw the replay it seemed it was "high", in that it was at the belt.
To be clear, by the rules it was a strike, but I think a lot of umps would have called it a ball. Also to be clear, had the Cubs lost like that, I would be screaming we got jobbed.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Giff - 07-04-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47945:date=Jul 3 2009, 09:05 PM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ Jul 3 2009, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47846:date=Jul 3 2009, 03:39 PM:name=Andy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy @ Jul 3 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm not a fan of "subjective".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. By leaving it to the umpires, you can get some obviously bad discretionary determinations. But at the same time, are you going to make ejection mandatory in all cases? What about a situation where, after a warning, a pitcher accidentally hits a batter with a slow breaking ball when the bases are loaded and a run scores. Obviously no question it's not intentional, but that would still require a "subjective" determination by the umpire.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Unfortunately, some umpires actually look at it as an automatic ejection, which leads to a situation that happened a few years ago. The pitcher got his spikes caught in the dirt and fell over, and the ball floated and hit the batter. But the ump had already given warnings, so he ejected the pitcher. Obviously that's more extreme than today's case, but that's why it isn't supposed to be an automatic thing.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - veryzer - 07-04-2009
i thought suppan hit lee on purpose.
Why wasn't Suppan ejected? - Lance - 07-04-2009
<!--quoteo(post=47978:date=Jul 4 2009, 09:46 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 4 2009, 09:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i thought suppan hit lee on purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but then he hit Jake Fox, after the warning was issued, and it obviously wasn't on purpose.