Straight From JAFO ... A Great Christmas Message

Hat tip to JAFO for the video below and the message it holds.

For all those serving, so we can enjoy peace, thank you.

http://biggeekdad.com/2011/02/bob-hope-christmas/

Why JAFO was right, and how MLB agrees

So if you happen to miss it yesterday, JAFO and I went point - counterpoint on the Dempster - A-Rod issue from Sundays Red Sox - Yankees game.

Take a look here, for a brief recap.

I enjoyed JAFO's analysis, and as often occurs when we interact, I learn something by looking through a lens I had never before. I am learning to call it the "JAFO Effect."

Interestingly enough, almost immediately after JAFO posted the piece, Dempster was suspended, and from it, for me, it was more clear than ever that MLB through that suspension and fine, agreed with JAFO, and condoned the action of Dempster.

Let me start by agreeing with JAFO that Dempster was not trying to hurt A-Rod. If he tried to hurt him, he would have hurt him. My biggest beef was Dempster playing the "MLB Enforcer" role, then ducking the issue completely when asked directly. Yeah I know you get suspended when you make such statements, but I think it may have gone better if he said something.

Well, JAFO noted, and I agree, that a message was sent, and through the lack of direct reaction from both teams, they were "ok" with what happened.

I'll go further and say given the suspension that MLB handed down to Dempster today, they too were "ok" with what happened. Why do I say that?

Well, consider the role of a starting pitcher, with a start approximately every (5) days. Between starts these guys don't do anything and if a team happens to have a day off, well that's just gravy.

Now, Dempster was suspended for exactly (5) days by MLB, and when given the opportunity,  to appeal his suspension, he chose not to, thereby not extending the time which the suspension would be served. Oh did I mention that the Sox have a day off coming up next week?

So think about it, MLB suspended Dempster only for the exact amount of time he would have had to sit anyway, resting for his next start. Pretty strange coincidence huh?

Further, the "undisclosed amount" he was fined was reported to be $2500. Further indication that MLB was "ok" with the incident as such a fine is hardly punitive for a player making $13.25M this year ... oh yeah ... and he still gets paid during this time. That part is of course typical for on field incidents. Even Giardi was fined more at $5000 for "doing the right thing" yet here too I agree that while traditional, it was practically the wrong way.

So while both teams showed great apathy to the beaning (except for Girardi, who needed to respond the way he did), MLB has followed suit and I would opine, through their action, essentially said "nothing to see here" by appeasing the yahoos like me who genuinely believe that Dempster was wrong in playing the enforcer (yet traditionally right as JAFO noted) by a suspension and fine, and also appeased whoever is left supporting A-Rod as he prepares to face his arbitration hearing.

One guy who may feel a bit funny is O'Nora, who saw MLB go over his head to "do the right thing" (albeit meaninglessly punitive).

Something tells me he is ok with it too.

Soccer Crop

Photo courtesy White Barn Farm

So over this last year my wife and I have partaken in a community farm (CSA) in Wrentham named White Barn Farm. It is a really cool place, run by some really nice folks who grow organic vegetables of which we purchase a share for the season and have enjoyed fresh veggies now for just about the whole year. For those interested they also have a roadside stand they run that is just out if the world!

Well, these folks put on a farm dinner the other night which was particularly excellent. They paired with Tastings (of Patriot Place fame who supplied their master chef for the evening) as well as Franklin Honey, and Burnshirt Valley Farms, for a tremendous organic and completely farm raised dinner. It was a fantastic event that I hope they do again soon.

We sat with some really nice folks and enjoyed conversation for the evening. One couple we dined with were the owners of Tastings and learned about their fascinating story of how Tastings came to be, and their deep roots in the community.

We also sat with a very nice couple from a Northwest suburb of Boston. Somehow the conversation turned to sports briefly and the gentleman shared his opinion about being an O-35 player, his team, how they were doing, and how much he enjoyed the league and playing. I was taken back in the most positive of ways at just how much he loved the game as he expressed himself. For whatever reason I did not expect to run into such a conversation in that setting.

Later on in the evening, I heard off in the distance someone mutter, "... Manchester United ...", and in the next sentence, "... Chelsea ... ." It was at this point in time despite being engrossed in a conversation I had to stop and listen for just a second to get some context.

A few places down I head one of the farm owners and another restaurant owner and chef discussing the days EPL results and their comments about the play and refereeing. Now I was blown away. Not so much about the topics, but about the passion that these folks were speaking about it. They were *really* into these teams and clearly were knowledgeable fans.

It was another reminder of something that JAFO says often, that Soccer Is Life.

This was yet another affirmation of that truism and a lesson for me of just how amazingly true that is.

JAFO Weighs In

As a follow up to "You Wanna Go?" earlier in the month, JAFO had a really a really good comment, agreeing in part with my comments, but adding a critical wrinkle to the mix. I wanted to share with you all. Straight from JAFO:

Yes but.........contained in the MLB rules is this gem: "9.02(a) Comment: Players leaving their position in the field or on base, or managers or coaches leaving the bench or coaches box, to argue on BALLS AND STRIKES will not be permitted. They should be warned if they start for the plate to protest the call. If they continue, they will be ejected from the game."

So, to take the umpire's position for a moment, this is an automatic, and his hands are essentially tied.  I am sure that Kulpa was not taunting Hunter, but expressing surprise and disbelief that Hunter would even begin to argue a ball/strike call knowing the penalty for doing so.  And this in the 8th inning of a game in which Hunter's team was in firm command.  Why argue something un-winnable at that point?  

This does not negate your comments and conclusion that Kulpa could have shown more respect, but does it at least raise the question about what responsibility the player had in all of this.  By backing the umpire into a corner, was Hunter showing respect?

A most excellent comment from one far more educated than I am about baseball.

My answer to the last question posited is a resounding "no" and JAFO is right that respect is a two sided coin. By Hunter arguing after the fact, and knowing better, he did put Kulpa in a corner that he had to do something. Ignore, argue back, eject ... None are great alternatives for Kulpa, or the game. Point well taken JAFO.

It lead me to a follow on thought, to be covered tomorrow soon, about "automatic" v. "discretionary" sanctioning and when you must use one versus considering using the other. Something about having enough rope to choke yourself ...

Who is JAFO?

As many of you have seen, there is a contributor listed named JAFO. A couple of readers have asked who that is. JAFO is someone who occasionally may contribute to the posts but wishes to remain anonymous. 

Again speaking from my legal training, the right to speak anonymously has been upheld again and again by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS). One example for those who want to fall asleep is Talley v. California 362 U.S. 60 (1960) which stands for the proposition that "... identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance."

I believe we can operate within this fora in this manner without undermining its effectiveness. I am more willing to hide the identity of some contributors who do so in good faith and for legitimate reasons that not have these folks contribute at all, as their posts are valuable and provide a perspective I can not.

A historical example is Benjamin Franklin, his pseudonym Silence Dogood was a staple in James Franklin's paper the New England Courant. This middle aged widow character looked at the world through a particularly "cracked" lens and allowed Ben to protect himself from any public scrutiny that may result. Same here at Kicking-Back.

The name JAFO is actually an acronym.  If you really want to know what JAFO stands for, check out the 80's film called Blue Thunder.

Now one person who is not masking their identity is me, your humble host. I believe it is critical to have one "face" to show that we mean business and stand behind what is written here. As I have offered before, and I do so again now, if there are ideas for future entries, or a topic you want to spin up, please feel free to contact me here, or post directly to the blog entries, and we can make that happen.