Ejection 065 - Craig Counsell Tossed After Pair of Pitches Concerning Batter's Interference Rule
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2022
- HP Umpire Ramon De Jesus ejected Brewers manager Craig Counsell after consecutive pitches during Nationals batter Victor Robles' at-bat resulted in interference no-calls (including a backswing contact call). Report: www.closecallsports.com/2022/...
- Спорт
After watching a bunch of these videos in the past couple days, I have to say that it was fantastic hearing the TV announcer actually know the rules and explain it clearly. Big thumbs up to that guy.
If I were Counsell, I would've left the field on the bullpen car LOL
Looks like a clown car at a circus. The blue and yellow top looks like a clown costume. Counsel is a prick.
This whole video is terrible. The black umpire looks like he is something to prove. Whoever the woman is talking is annoying. And Washington manager looks like he needs his ass kicked
😂
😂
😂
Thank you for your words about the work we do as umpires
It's nice having broadcasters actually explain the rules.
Says the guy who just watched Eric Karros try to say swinging strike HBP aren't reviewable for 1.5 innings.
This ejection had me laughing so hard as a Brewers fan 😂🤣😂
Been waiting for it. Counsell did it to get us fired up.
This is the type of action that should get the umpire on the mic and explain to everyone what is going on. What good is a mic that is never used?
De Jesus did such a good job here, I would unfortunately not be able to control my tempor with a coach trying to lecture me on rules I've reviewed time and time again and he hasnt read once. Good on De Jesus for not only standing his ground but not going overboard as I would have.
The Dave Martinez effect - passionately expressing a completely incorrect opinion on the rules you don't understand - in full effect here... against Dave Martinez.
Martinez made an ass of himself in game 6 of the World Series
Came out 3 times and was 0 for 3 lol
Hard to tell but it looked like De Jesus yelled "I know I got it right" at one point right after he ejected him.
Context is important: Counsell and De Jesus have some history and this play came at time where the Brewers were in the thick of a LONG losing streak so I think Counsell was just kinda trying to fire the guys up.
Great to see the umps get it right!! Good job get together and figure it out. Nicely done!
Couunsell called the umpire "a big fat poopyhead". The stongest language in his vocabulary!
With your point about Counsell having to be alerted about the call, I think he came out to argue because, as you’ve mentioned in a previous video, only the manager can discuss it.
the comment on arguing rules you know and the coach doesn’t is so true. the two things that piss me off the most is that and coaches arguing pitches in/out from the dugout (which they really can’t see).
@Matt - Of course the coaches can't really see the pitches from the dugout except if they argue high or low pitches. Because these types of pitches can be easily be seen from the dugout. But the coaches know their batters. And they feel confident that a (good) batter knows if the pitch was a strike or a ball.
@@thomasgoetz8723 And when they're in a slump, they feel everyone is out to get them.
@@thomasgoetz8723 Yes! A good manager trusts his players and has their back.
I’m just shocked how much these managers who make millions of dollars don’t know the rules.
Ramon De Jesus is a good umpire
I admit, he's really improved since the Chase Utley incident.
Classic case of manager not knowing the rules and embarrassing himself in front of 30,000 people
Still never understand why managers (or players) are allowed to argue after ejections. It makes some of them seek out an ejection to make a scene. Once they're ejected, if they don't leave right away, security escorts them out. End of story. If the umpire was later found to be out of line (like in Dan Bellino's case with MadBum), there needs to be some kind of punishment with the umpire. But angry managers makes for great viewing and more eyes on the sport, so they'll never do anything about it.
Even in Bellino's case, he still had a nominal excuse that he alluded to in his nonpology - MadBum used a curse word in calling out Bellino's weird behavior. (Basically it was "I'm sorry that scene wasn't something kids should see", i.e. "apologizing" for how wrong MadBum supposedly was.)
The problem is that it's pathetically-easy for umpires to manufacture excuses, so less than 1 in 20 (if that many) instances of umpires acting out of spite will even draw any attention. It's become "normal".
on the first proposed batters interference, could the argument be made that the catcher could throw to first to pick off the runner? what if the runner tripped going back to first and the batter touched the ball with his bat to slow down the throw? or even if the batter returns slowly to first and the catcher wants to throw over there. Catcher to first pick offs have happened.
The argument could be made. It would be a silly argument, but Counsel could make it. It would be consistent with many of his other arguments.
@@allanbird3725 why is it a silly argument?
@@maxamos7 Because the runner didn't trip. There was no attempted play so it can't be interference. If the catcher tried to throw to first then it's a different story
Got ejected for not knowing the rules. Good thing his team is playing well, otherwise he’d look like a joke.
A seven game skid and getting knocked out of first place in your division isn't playing well.
Didn't it saw in the rule if a batter crossed the plate on that it is a out? I clearly see the batter OVER the plate with his body during the throw.
@@63076topher No, the rule book does not say that. It says the batter would be guilty of interference if he interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play. There was no play being made so there was nothing to interfere with.
@@alanhess9306 What a throw is not a play?
@@63076topher I thought you were referring to the first call where the batter attempts to touch the ball on the ground. Apparently you were referring to the follow through interference. In the follow through play, the batter never crosses the plate, so you were wrong about that.
So basically Craig Counsell doesn't know the rules and is wrong and Ramon de Jesus is right.
Good breakdown Lindsay
I saw the batter leaning over the plate as the catcher was throwing though which I heard in the rule was illegal and a out.
@@63076topher the batter didnt lean over the plate during the throw, you are simply wrong.
@@63076topher Watch it again. The batter was not over the plate.
That would have been interesting to see all 3 different scenarios.
Umpire was right case closed.
@@troyadams1749 obvious you didn't hear the commentator gie you the rule from the book verbadum. So by rule he's RIGHT and we've ALL had way more than ENOUGH of the RACIST BULL SHIT.
Calm down dude
On the backswing interference, "the ball is dead". So if R1 was out on the steal, that too is wiped out, or does the defense get the option?
Ah, could have included that part too. From the same rule 6.03(a)(3) Comment: "If, however, the catcher makes a play and the runner attempting to advance is put out, it is to be assumed there was no actual interference and that runner is out-not the batter. Any other runners on the base at the time may advance as the ruling is that there is no actual interference if a runner is retired. In that case play proceeds just as if no violation had been called."
The "runner is out-not the batter" part is meant to be about actual interference where the batter falls across home plate, but the outcome of ignoring it if the runner is thrown out is the same for backswing.
Props to these announcers for actually knowing the rules
Obviously, someone saw it, regardless of if he saw it or not doesn't matter. Who else is supposed to go and give the ump some crap?
Why does anyone need to give the umpire crap when the umpire was 100% correct?
What happens if the manager refuses to leave is it a forfeit or suspended game??????????
Coaches never read rule books.
Never would have guessed that Craig Counsell would be tossed before David Bell.
My $ is on De Jesus
What you don't see here is earlier there were at least three strikes (or at least borderline strikes) that were called balls, including one basically right down the middle that would've been strike 3 a few innings prior. Those calls indirectly led to runs. There is also history between De Jesus and Narvaez from last season when Narvaez and Counsell were both tossed for arguing a pitch way low and way off the plate in the 9th inning of a game in St. Louis when he was batting. Combine that with what happened in this video, and the current losing streak, there was only one way this was going to end.
Thank you. Yes, Counsell was wrong to think that HITTING THE CATCHER WITH THE BAT as he's trying to throw out the runner is enough to make an umpire call the batter out for doing so. (0_o)
But it's really, really aggravating to realize someone you used to think was being honest and presenting full context... only cherry-picks context that makes umpires look justified, and omits anything else.
@@darkarima As much as I like the videos that is one critique that I have. Sometimes ejections go beyond what happened immediately preceding the ejection.
@@markmelchior726 if youre referring to CloseCallSports as "him" this channel is run by a woman, Lindsay. But Tmac is my man and does make the Ask the UEFL and Teachable videos on here.
@@tw1nn319 I changed "him" to "the." Satisfied?
@@tw1nn319 T Mac is the best!
Threw me a bit when they initially replayed the wrong AB from behind the pitcher and there was obviously no bat contact on the catcher.
Not even half the season 65 ejections already
I love how much Craig fights for each and every game
Counsell is looking like a complete idiot here. He was completely wrong on both calls. He is fast becoming the idiotic manager of the decade,
ABSOLUTELY A1 ejection mechanic out of De Jesus hoooooolllyyyyy shhiiiiiiiiiiii 😂😂🔥
Something about the way Counsell's hat fits him...
We got our money’s worth again! 🛎 💰
We’re up to #12 this season
Love the channel Lindsay!
Can you help with another call in this game? On a ground ball to the right, the runner from 1st was called out for veering out of the base path. The problem was that the fielder had the ball in his hand and was tagging with the glove. Is this a legitimate tag attempt that establishes a base path?
Yes.
Yes, it doesn't matter what the *quality* of the tag attempt is per se, just that the runner ran more than three feet away from their base path in order to avoid a tag.
@@LindsayImber1 thanks. Glad I asked - I probably would have called it the other way. It does lead to an odd situation - if the runner doesn’t leave the base path but is tagged by the empty glove, he’s safe, but veering away from an empty glove makes him out. But I can understand that we don’t want to be asked to make judgment calls about whether a tag would have been successful.
Again, great channel. I’m out on a medical but trying to stay sharp on the rules, and you’re a daily watch.
@@mulgrum Right, it's somewhat of a theme in the rulebook. A player who does something violative loses the benefit of the doubt, run more than three feet to avoid a tag = you're out even if the fielder drops the ball while lunging to tag you. Stay in your base path = you're safe if the fielder drops the ball while lunging to tag you.
Or runner's lane interference where all else equal a batter-runner who runs the entire way to first base outside of the runner's lane can be called for RLI if they get hit by the ball in the last stride to first base, but a batter-runner who runs within the runner's lane until that last stride to first base is protected from being called for RLI if they get hit by the ball. Even though both batter-runners would have gotten hit by the ball in the same exact location, the former's failure to follow the lane rule causes them to be out for RLI and the latter's adherence to the rule enables them to enjoy the exit-to-first-base protection on the last stride.
I'm confused why Counsell was mad. Didn't the runner returning help his team? Again, these coaches just putting on a show for nothing.
Good to see Victor Robles find other ways to disrupt the game when he is not TOOTBLANing or having poor at bats.
Baseball IQ was never his strong suit.
Robles was once the Nationals top prospect ahead of Juan Soto.
4:35 Did somebody get a coin?
Why is Ashby in the game with 100 pitches, 6 earned runs in the 5th lol
Might have been a situation where the bullpen had been overworked and they needed to give a rest to as many guys as possible. In a 162-game season, it happens sometimes.
Same reason the Cubs left their starter in to allow 6 hrs.
Why was Ashby still pitching? Down 3, 100 pitches in 5th...Counsell wanted to lose anyway I guess
I beg to differ with the first batter. A runner is on first, a throw to second for a steal or a pick-off throw can be made. By the batter hitting or attempting to hit a ball that is in play, is hindering the catcher's play. The rule posted doesn't say "If there is a play...", it says "movement that hinders the catcher's play". The catcher is attempting to pick up the ball and look the runner back to first and the batter hits or attempts to hit the ball with the bat, which hinders the catcher from being able to pick it up and look him back/throw to first.
The rule says the batter is out if he interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing. There was nothing happening that the batter interfered with. Try to stay focused on what happened in the video and not what might have happened.
@@alanhess9306 I was going off the rule quoted in the video. I know the runner wasn't stealing or had a big lead, but not calling it when the ball is in play, leads to subjectivity and controversy later.
@@dustinworthy2750 The umpire properly used his judgment that there was no play to interfere with. A hypothetical situation is not considered. The controversy is only created by those who don't realize there was no interference.
Cool umpire helmet
As an umpire, I get great satisfaction when a manager or a player argues a rule they don’t actually understand… You look like an idiot when you do that!
Yeah but the umpire was very unprofessional by charging at council you know as well as everybody else when you're an umpire and a good one toss them out and walk back to your position you don't get in their face this guy was unprofessional and won't be a held accountable for his actions
@@jasonmichaels5796 Counsell argues 2 rules he doesn't know after the umpire makes the correct calls and all you can do is say the umpire is unprofessional? Counsell made himself look like an idiot here.
@@alanhess9306 Right or wrong I don't care I'm not a Brewer's fan and I could care less whether council knew the rules are not most coaches don't but the umpires nowadays are very unprofessional and they're looking for a fight they're looking for an argument and it's totally wrong be professional and do your job the way you're supposed to. Like I said Mr can't be wrong The umpire was out of place he should have threw him out and went back behind the plate and end of story but instead he charged that council like he was getting ready to punch his lights out so don't send a message back telling me what I did and didn't mean or say the umpire was wrong. And you're an idiot. You freaking liberal
the backswing/followthrough INT is different in High School as that is an out there.
Not really. In a back swing interference incident (pre-pitch), the PU should call "time" and stop play. Have F1 and F2, along with the batter "reset" with NO penalty (the rule book does not support any PEN in this case). In follow through INT, there is an out depending if the runner being played on is thrown out or not.
@@jacobyshelby1219 Ron is correct. Under MLB rules, follow through interference is interference but the batter is not called out. Under NFHS rules, the batter is out.
"Nothing is happening, you can't interfere with nothing"... except that it's really hard to pick up the ball and make a snap throw behind a runner who's wandered away from first base, when the batter is "helpfully" knocking it away from you. You wouldn't see this behavior have suddenly appeared and become frequent, and catchers getting irritated by it, if it weren't a cute "oopsie, I was just trying to help" way to gain advantage.
Dunno about you, but if I'm trying to make a snap throw to catch a runner off-base, I don't generally:
- Stand up really slowly.
- Casually stroll over to the ball, chatting to the batter.
- Casually bend over to retrieve the ball.
- Do nothing else.
Nothing. Was. Happening. There was no play. Anywhere.
This is one of those situations where literally everyone in the stadium is treating it as a de facto dead ball, EXCEPT Craig Counsell. Who was so invested in the play, he wasn't even watching it.
@@GwresYnKernow Sure, *if* that had been what happened you would have a point.
Before the batter has finished twisting back from his swing, he reaches out. The catcher immediately looks at first, stands up, and as he's reaching for the ball the batter is swiping at it with his bat. *After* that, the catcher is "chatting" to him to call him out for breaking the rules.
@@darkarima if he had attempted a play at first perhaps this argument is valid, but as the catcher did not, this argument is irrelevant.
@@tw1nn319 By this logic, the umpire was wrong the other day to award Caratini second after a first baseman all-but-tackled him after missing the throw. After the second thwarted attempt to get up, he realized there was no point and didn't try to run - so obviously this means there was no obstruction.
@@darkarima youre sounding dumber with every post. You just said the first baseman "all but tackled him", which sounds to me like obstruction on a thrown ball, which is an AUTOMATIC award of 2nd base. No judgement involved
Seemingly, it is all Robles fault.
Everybody calls him Craig Console.
Counsell should go read the rule book
Counsell is a few losses away from being fired
Should have protested the game
Protests have not been allowed for a couple of years. And a judgment call can never be protested.
Wow this is like a poor man’s Jomboy….horrible.
Total nonsense. Close Call Sports is far superior in respect to rules and umpiring.
counsell will be fired
Not too crazy. Joe Maddon was fired when the Angels went on a downward spiral.
haha o way
Think Counsell is ticked cause his pitcher have red up a hit..
Umpires should never be on the offensive.
Counsell is so bad, needs to be fired immediately
Counsell is a bozo
There are times I am wondering if Counsell is the benefactor of a solid good team, compared to actually being a good manager.
Saying this as a Brewer fan from Wisconsin, for all the people outside of Wisconsin who say Counsell is the best manager in MLB, then you aren’t watching the games. Overmanager of the year maybe.
@@renodangle The Brewers have great players (from a Pirates fans perspective every player is good that isn't on our team). Counsell just seems like he is a legacy hire because he played for them. I heard Joe Maddon is on the Market, lol, he would be so much more successful with these players than Councell is, especially come post season baseball.
They know none of them……. Only to actually play in the MLB
Is there a HP umpire who can always keep cool when ejecting someone argumentative?
Is there a manager who can understand the rule and not argue when the umpire is correct?
I used to love this channel but what in uwu is going!…. Hmmm idk
This is what happens when you try to be nice to the catcher on the other team.
What happened someone is talking over the video!!!
Is this arguing balls and strikes?
I would say "no" since both instances, the batter swung and there was no "issue" there. Only that Counsel believes the batter should've been out for the follow through interference and not just sending R1 back to first (I think, I can't read lips too well.)
@@jacobyshelby1219 Jomboy might know this!
@@jacobyshelby1219 Counsell was wrong in believing the batter should be out, wasn't he?
@@alanhess9306 yes, he admitted later in a post-game interview that the umps got it right
@@alanhess9306 yeah, but is a tough called by the umpires.
THEY SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET RID OF THE UMPS ABILITY TO THROW PEOPLE OUT.
Not gonna happen.
@@Subangelis IT WILL WHEN WE GET0 PEOPLE LIKE YOU OUT THE WAY.
They seriously need to get rid of managers who don't know the rules but argue anyway.
Is it time for the umpires to follow the rulebook's advice and carry the rulebook on the field?
Why? The umpire knew the rule and made the correct call. Counsell is the one who needs to learn the rule book.
@@davej3781 I was taught to never bring a rule book with me. I heard a story, years ago, about the NCAA requiring umpires to have the book on the them. The story goes that the umpires wrapped the book in rubber bands so tightly, it would take 5 minute to get to the rule. I don't know if it's true or not, but it is a good story.
@3:15. You are wrong. Because the advancing runner was safe at second the batter should have been ruled out.
See rule 6.06: He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s
box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. EXCEPTION: Batter is not out if any runner attempting to advance is put out, or if runner trying to score is called out for batter’s interference.
The rules are quite gray, but you are wrong on this. The movement rule is for movement by the batter's body into the catcher. There is specifically a rule for backswing interference with a different punishment, as was covered in the video. The backswing interference rule would not exist if the movement rule also applied to backswing interference
The umpiring up to this point had sucked and it had been a frustrating game all around d so this was just an explosion out of frustration. And obviously this narrator is no fun of Counsell.
Maybe managers should argue when the umpire is wrong. Counsell argued two calls that were correct. Doesn't make him look good.
@@alanhess9306 I watched the whole game. Just saying the frustration had been building. Maybe do a review on the calls the umps screwed up.
On that first pitch, doesn't it matter that the batter may have spoiled a catcher's pickoff attempt at first? I mean it's very unlikely the runner had much of a lead if any at that point, but in theory it was possible.
What matters is what happened, not what may have happened.
I’m trying to figure out if the umpire came from his construction job or if he’s going after the game. I mean he is wearing a hard hat.
Him and another umpire use that style
What does counsel watching the play have to do with anything. He kinda has alot going on . A little bias . He has like 7 coaches to advice him
Exactly what I was thinking. His bench coach may have picked it up and alerted Counsell to what happened.
@@markmelchior726 reguardless, if it was him, the bench coach, the pitching coach, or his own mom texting him, they and he were wrong.
@@tw1nn319 Fine, they were wrong. Not really the point. The point was they pointed something out.
@@markmelchior726 and what they pointed out, was wrong, goodbye 👋
@@tw1nn319 How about you take your own advice?
THE BATTER IMMEDIATELY CROSSED THE HOME PLATE WITH HIS BAT WHILE A RUNNER WAS ON. THAT'S INTERFERENCE NO MATTER HOW PEOPLE OR THE FAKE RULES WANT TO SLICE IT UP.
There was no play. Runner wasn't going, so what play was he interfering with?
@@Subangelis I DONT ANSWER STUPID QUESTIONS
@@ibe310 You don't answer stupid questions, you just make stupid comments.
@@ibe310 I don't normally comment on stupid statements.
@@ibe310 It's a valid question. If you tried to answer his question you would just be confirming the fact that you don't know the rules.
Make up call
BS. Both calls were correct according to the rules..
is everybody on here ex umpires or current, cause everyone kisses up to whatever ol Marge says. stir up some pancake batter mom.
Well the people on here who were umpires or are currently umpires know De Jesus was correct and Counsell was wrong.
"ol Marge" knows baseball far better than you ever will.
You just look for excuses to get Angel Hernandez in the video (5:00).
Pretty sure that's actually Phil Cuzzi.
@@markmelchior726 maybe i just see Angel Hernandez everywhere.
When an ump gets the chip on their shoulder against a manager. The manager knows he won't get any calls for at least the rest of the game. Craig was protecting his catcher from possible ejection in the first play. The second play , that was obvious interference, Craig has his mind made up that he is going to get ejected to try to give his team a chance against an egotistical ump . Go Whitefish Bay Blue Dukes!!
Indeed. As usual, CCS won't provide the context that de Jesus was going well over the top in taking strikes away from Narvaez while giving Nats pitchers a lenient zone. Or that there was history, with de Jesus ejecting Counsell and Narvaez last year for "making him look bad" by calling out his even-more-terrible zone. Or that Counsell's tactic worked, making de Jesus tone it down thereafter.
You are delusional
@@darkarima you are delusional
The backswing interference on the second play was called and the penalty according to the rule was correct. The umpire did nothing wrong.
Counsells a joke!!! Hahaha
I disagree with almost all of your commentary regarding managers not knowing rules.
So you agree with CC in this situation? I’ve been a die hard Brewers fan thru the Jose Hernandez era and I know damn well Craig was 100% wrong here, bud.
I recently saw a video with Buck Showalter talking about "lesser known rules". He was wrong on at least three rules.
If you knew the rule s you would know Counsell was wrong on both of them.
This is just another reason baseball is sooooooooooooo boring.