When dissent ... isin't

Let's take a closer look at Jose Bautista's epic bat flip

Jose Bautista is often known as Joey Bats. Now people are calling him "Joey Bat Flip," after his epic celebration capped a monstrous three-run home run in the seventh inning of Wednesday's deciding Game 5 of the American League Division Series.

With the hit, Bautista helped send the Blue Jays to the American League Championship Series. With the flip, Bautista created an image that rivals Joe Carter's 1993 World Series-winning blast. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of ESPN.

Kicking Back Comments: As referees we need to let players emote. Just as players need to let referees emote too and not think that we are all robots. Take a look here at an interesting article about referee communication ... some of which you have seen here at Kicking Back before.

If we take a look at Bautista's reaction, it is completely understandable in context. Big game, big hit. If instead he flipped his bat in the 1st inning if he crushed one over the wall, then a different reaction from the umpire would be necessary involving a dressing down I would imagine.

As referees we need to keep the contest in context to best determine a course of action. Is this a big game? Is this a big game for the particular player for some reason? (1st match back after a long injury? Last match before retirement?)

We need to allow such a player some latitude in expressing their emotions about the situation. If we don't, well, frankly we are robbing the fun out of the sport for them and that is not why we are here.

Consider the opposite number, Dyson in this case, the pitcher who just got lit up for a 3 run homer. He's upset as it is for giving up those runs in such a critical scenario, now add to that a gleeful Bautista and we have an issue. #10 from the Blue Jays did not help by hanging around and egging the crowd on which of course lead to the benches clearing.

In the same way we allowed Bautista to emote, we should allow Dyson to as well. The real magic is now not letting that brushfire spread wildly between the teams. It can be very powerful to let a player, or players have their say with each other and come in as a referee and say, "OK, are we done now?"

Like anything else, it is a fine line and a balancing act to be sure. We may even need to take a barb or two as referees in the process. I would opine however, it is a small price to pay to let some of the air out of the tire to finish with 22.

Does the result matter?

Over this past weekend the beginnings of MLB playoffs are unfolding. One such series going on now is the NLDS between the Dodgers and the NY Mets.

As most of us saw over the weekend we had a play at second base where a player made, at best, a reckless challenge into a second baseman in an attempt to break up the subsequent play to first base. In reality however the sliding player caused the second baseman to break his leg, ending the remainder of his season.

As a result, the player was allowed to continue to play in this game, the play was challenged, put under review, and upheld that the player who slid into second base was safe and in fact did nothing wrong. Subsequent to the game, the sliding player was suspended for (2) games, and that decision is being appealed currently.

Now, without regard to this particular players' history of similar events (which we will deal with later), there are a few burning questions I have:

1. Could the sliding player have been ejected during the game for the conduct?

2. If the second baseman was not injured, could this decision still have been reached?

3. Was it appropriate for the league to step in and issue the suspension?

4. Was the suspension appropriate given the result of the injury?

Now before I get into this, let it be known I am not a baseball guy, so please go easy. This is from a casual reading of the Official Baseball Rules, and frankly my interpretation may be way off ... then again, that is my point.

You can take a good look at the video here from CBS Sports. Do yourselves a favor and turn off the sound so as to not listen to the bozos commenting ... my favorite part was went one of these enlightened ones said by the shortstop turning his back, it made it his fault.

#1: I think the answer is yes that the Baseball Rules support an ejection. That is to say that can do it.
This lies in 8.01(d) and reads:

(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field. If an umpire disqualifies a player while a play is in progress, the disqualification shall not take effect until no further action is possible in that play.

Now the $64,000 question is if this type of behavior is considered unsporting. Look and the video and decide.

Now take a look at this video in which every single player was sent off either straight away or by a 2nd caution:

Not a lot of difference in some cases in my head. At the above are from a sport that expects tackling at some level.

#2: Is a resounding YES!!!!! Why wait for a serious injury to dismiss a player for such reckless play. Umpires in the baseball game could have, as could any soccer referee if such a tackle does not result in an injury.

#3: Joe Torre has to do something before it gets bat crap ugly ... which it still may by the way. Also while Torre cites 5.09 (a) (13) for the cause, I was thinking 6.01 (a) (6) and run the baserunners ass out under 8.01 (d).

#4: Here is the part that really gets my goat. If the player was not injured, or only mildly so the suspension would never have happened. It literally took a broken leg for MLB to do something about this.

I'll say honestly, in a Rule Book that ejects players for corked bats and arguing with an umpire, players seem immune for this kind of bush league crap that had the effect of removing a star player for the remainder of the NLDS. Now did he mean to hurt the player, I doubt it, but that does not factor into the equation. His clearly reckless act of sliding into the back of the plant leg of the fielder should. It was reckless to the nth degree and to me, the player should have been run right there on the spot. Instead, he was actually called safe and allowed to play.

While I am no fan of a lex talonis form of justice in some cases, two games is not nearly enough for this type of intentional play. Intentional to hurt, no. Intentional to break up the play, even in reckless fashion, yes. Let the player sit the rest of the season.

Here is where our bothers in MLB (no sisters yet?) need our help. These guys are simply not capable of determining what a foul like that is, and honestly should get trained as if baserunners are going to do this type of cheap $h!t, umpires should be trained to recognize it and run a player who does something like what we saw the other night.

Oh yeah ... he's done this before too, to the same player. Just look here.

As a lifelong Sox fan ...

... all I have to say is, go Cubs.

Speak Against Instant Replay and Get Suspended: Torre

MLB to fine Red Sox manager John Farrell for instant replay remarks

As if John’s Farrell’s weekend in New York wasn’t lousy enough, the Red Sox manager will get a not-so-pleasant parting gift from MLB.

Joe Torre, MLB’s executive VP of baseball operations, told the Daily News on Monday that Farrell would be fined for his critical remarks about baseball’s new replay system following Boston’s 3-2 loss Sunday night.

The comments, which included Farrell saying “it’s hard to have any faith in the (replay) system,” came after instant replay decisions went against the Sox in losses on Saturday and Sunday.

Perhaps the only thing keeping Farrell from a suspension is the fact Torre, the former Yankees skipper, knows how pressure-packed a Bombers-Red Sox series can be.

“I’m not going to suspend him. It will be a fine,” Torre said of Farrell. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of NYDailynews.com.

Kicking Back Comments: While on the surface Mr. Torre seems to be the benevolent dictator only fining Farrell, and not suspending him as Torre foreshadowed, if not for the heated atmosphere that is the Red Sox v. Yankees, I think the reason is far more simpler ...

MLB blew their first Instant Replay call and are deeply embarrassed.

Torre for his part picked the very same line out of the Farrell tirade that I did regarding losing faith in a system that is brand new. He (and MLB) clearly did not like that.

Even funnier was that Torre in defending the system said it will take "three years to roll out."

Hold on here ... there are 2430 games in a MLB season ... and it is going to take 3 of these ... a unbelievable 7290 games to get instant replay right!??!

Are you &*#&ing kidding me?? Three years to "get it right?" What a joke.

A wrong camera angle was to blame for the error that did not get to the umpires "until after they decided." Again, what a joke.

MLB should have just turned on the cable coverage and seen it clear as day.

So Farrell get a fine for the screw up of the league, awesome.

Torre "spares" Farrell a suspension, I think, to save himself the embarrassment of a system gone horribly wrong ... and this was one of the first times it was used.

Can you see this in Game 7 of a World Series? Oops ... sorry guys ... our fault.

No worries Joe, we know you'll get it right ... in 2017.

Yeah, it will go just like that.

Just leave it to the guys in blue ... please ... just leave it to them.

How's replay working for us now?

Sox skipper Farrell ejected for arguing replay ruling

NEW YORK -- Red Sox manager John Farrell boiled over with frustration on Sunday night after a replay call was challenged and overturned, leading to the Yankees scoring what ended up being the deciding run in the series finale. Farrell was ejected, as managers have been instructed not to argue plays under review.

The play happened in the bottom of the fourth inning, when Francisco Cervelli hit a grounder to third, with the Red Sox attempting a 5-4-3 double play.

Cervelli, who was injured on the play, was originally ruled out at first. But Yankees manager Joe Girardi challenged it, and the call was overturned. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of MLB.com.

Kicking Back Comments: "But we need replay to correct these mistakes," the masses shouted. Guess what ... the masses were wrong.

I'm not at all surprised of course, just hate to see it to one of the nice guys of the game John Farrell.

I could go into a frenzy about how poorly replay was used in this case, or how managers are instructed not to argue after the replay decision is made (which is why Farrell was ejected), and how MLB after the game said they screwed up and got the replay call wrong which was directly causal to the Red Sox losing that game.

Nope, I won't. I'll just leave you with Farrell's telling comment about replay that now hangs on the MLB:

"On the heels of yesterday, it's hard to have any faith in the system, to be honest with you."

We're 8 games into the season and have already lost faith on the 2014 crowning jewel of officiating, the instant replay ...

... I'm surprised it took this long.

Experimental Rule 7.13, et al ...

Major League Baseball has adopted Experimental Rule 7.13, governing collisions at home plate. Including the rulebook commentary, which guides implementation of the rule, it takes 351 words to say that runners may not go out of their way to barrel over a catcher, and that a catcher cannot block home plate without having the ball. The word “buttocks” is included, so you know it’s good. ...

See the whole story here, from Sporting News.

Kicking Back Comments: I'm not sure what is funnier the "rule modifications" suggested by SN, or concern showed my MLB to make this "experimental" for 2014. I mean, come on folks, if you think it is important, do it, don't go half way.

For any interested, the text of the rule itself can be found here, in a tweet from MLB.

Too Much Dabbling?

Yesterday I reported on Jerome Chanpagne's candidacy for FIFA presidency, and also praised him for at least wading into the waters of trying to make a referee's life easier by creating an "orange card" that would have the effect of putting an offending a player in a "sin bin."

He has also suggested a variety of other changes that can be seen at the article.

In the face of all of these suggested changes, and that of MLB approving expanded replay in 2014 and the NFL tinkering with the thought of eliminating the point after touchdown (PAT), are leagues going too far to change the game they represent?

I think so. Instead of tackling the real issues in sport like PEDs, corruption, professional referees, the respective administrators of their sport want to tinker with silly elements that have been, or not been, part of the game for a long time.

If you want to look at a pioneer for changes to the game, look at Sir Ken Aston with the truly meaningful changes he made throughout his life.

Some changes are necessary with time, such as helmets for football players, and eventually as a result in 1956 penalties called "facemasks" were introduced.

Or maybe in gameplay itself as when icing was introduced in 1937 to speed up play and promote attacking hockey.

As I have stated here before I am not a fan of all the technology into the game to "assist" referees. Man has not evolved to the point that another man can't detect if they are cheating or not, as hard as they may try. Changes to the respective games today seem to be toward the introduction of these technological "advances" to "assist" referees.

While there is a case to be made for the technology assistance from some, fundamental changes to the game, such as how the game is scored should be left alone. Last time something like this was changed in the NFL was 1912 when a touchdown was increased from 5 points to 6. Now 100 years later we need to change this for some reason?

In this day and age, changes to the game are not made for the sake of the game itself I feel, but rather to appeal to the widest television market a sport can attain, or correctly said, allow for as many advertisers as possible. I suspect the NFLs motivation is more in this vein.

While an argument has been made that (in the case of the NFL) these PATs are "automatic"and one notable coach names these as "non-plays" and there should not be "non-plays" in the game, it has been part of the game for a long time, and one that still provide some drama, however rare. Currently the last PAT missed was back in December of 2012. In the current season the conversion is hovering around 99.97%.

Not all that long ago (1932) the conversion rate for PATs was around 67% and teams in needing these point developed specialists to nab the PAT. Why take it away? Why not take away the 2 point conversion as well then? Field goals? Forward passes?

Like any game, I want it to be exciting, and some trains of thought may see the PAT as a non-exciting element of the game today. I respectfully disagree. In fact it heightens the drama as you should want to be there for that moment a kicker misses, or a team produces a trick play and runs it in.

How about this for a change to make the PATs more exciting ... make a touchdown worth 4 points ... a filed goal 3 ... retain the 2 point conversion ... and a PAT worth 1.

Yes the scores will be lower, but that PAT will mean a whole lot more.

Clearly it is unlikely they  will change the point value for a touchdown. Why? Certainly tradition.
So they why change the PAT?

Getting back to soccer, a very nice synopsis of law changes can be found here, courtesy of FIFA. Trust me, FIFA has done some dumb things to the LOTG as well, and at times has used the MLS as its petri dish.

I can sum this up in a word (from the early days of MLS):

Rampage.

For those who don't know about it ... imagine a set of (5) kicks per team, a goalkeeper in their net, a player at the 35 yard line, and the rest of the team at midfield. Everybody is in place and waiting. The JAR drops their flag and 22 players run at the ball in an effort to score or defend a score.

It was so absurd and so short lived I can't even find any video evidence of it.

FIFA and MLS quickly got the point how stupid it was, and abandoned the practice.

Tinkering is fine, kick ins for example were actually a cool idea and made sense for the game played with the feet ... but goofing around with the fabric of the game is not.

Just leave it alone guys, please.

Put an asterisk by his name too

I'll begin by saying, as I have in the past, I am not a "baseball guy." I have demonstrated this several times and been rightly corrected by JAFO on a variety of topics. With the whole A-Rod steroid thing, I just can't help myself though.

My ire is not for A-Rod, who while completely unlikable, is accurate in saying he did not test positive for PEDs. This is however similar to the NFL policy on recreational drugs, as a well announced test after training camp that you would have to be a dope (no pun intended) to fail.

I'm also not living in a fantasy world as one of A-Rods lawyers implied David Ortiz was using PEDs. My response is the same ... duh, of course he is.

I could go off again as I did in the Lance Armstrong affair and talk about robbing due process and other procedural issues that really let the leagues ... if they want ... investigate such matters.

Problem is of course, they don't want to, unless it suits them.

This is where my vitriol lies today ... to Bud Selig, the current commissioner of MLB.

To me, it seems clear that part of the reason why A-Rod is being singled out so severely is to preserve Bud Selig's name as he retires as commissioner. While conjecture on my part, the timing does line up.

After all, he is 100% sure that he is retiring in 2014 and is looking for a "Mariano Rivera-esque" 30 ball park farewell tour. (I'd be careful with that one Bud, you may not get what you are looking for) Selig has been the MLB commish for 21 years and stands as the 2nd longest tenure in the game.

He is certainly not without his controversy, including his Brewers ownership and was an active participant of removal of the, then seated, commissioner, Fay Vincent. (source)

Vincent certainly helped define Selig's tenure however when in 2006 with the Barry Bonds PED controversy swirling he stated Selig was "... an observer of a forum beyond his reach." (source)

Selig from that point forward owned the issue, and was seen as essentially neutered to deal with it due to the strength of the PA.

Now to his credit, he got the players (or their union) to agree to drug testing over time, over their very loud objections, and again to his credit, started to build some credibility back into the game itself. Some of this is an illusion of course as the testing protocol was hardly strict ... or unknown to the players ... but it was progress.

Enter around that time Michael Weiner the new MLBPA by all accounts both had no ego about his position, and put the game first. A man after my own heart, an one that tragically succumbed to a brain tumor and recently passed away. Before he did however he recognized PEDs were bad for the game, potentially worse for the user and worst for the non-user who's struggling with the question "to do it" or "not do it." He allowed the staunch anti-PED player to have a loud voice. Selig had no confidence of the players, Weiner did. (In a separate note, if you want to research what a man of integrity is like ... look up Michael Weiner.)

In the agreement reached with the PA and the league, a mainstay was confidentiality regarding any details of infractions and outlined a play by play protocol for any such issues.

Buddy blew it big time when he went to 60 Minutes on the A-Rod stuff.

I am struggling to even understand why MLB went to the media other than Bud's ego, and desire to "put a stamp" on "his legacy."

Really, MLB admitted to buying, even possibly stealing evidence and trashing a man and whatever due process rights and reputation he had all while violating the standing agreement with the PA.

For the good of the game, or for the good of his ego?

Similar to players who rightly should have an asterisk by their name for breaking a record when using PEDs, so should Mr. Selig for feathering his ego before protecting what he is charged to do. He may never have taken PEDs, but his performance was certainly altered by them.

In their own words

So the other day I wrote about the umpire crew in Game 1 of the World Series getting it right in the 1st inning, in "We have to get it right ... ."

Well as if on cue, we have this article, from Masslive.com, that goes into a bit more depth and has direct quotes from the crew and MLB director of operations.

A fascinating look as to how it happened, and how they worked together to correct it.

"We have to get it right ..."

Was the mantra of members of the World Series umpiring crew, after an initial incorrect call in the 1st inning at 2nd base, which was soon overturned by a huddle from the crew ...

In this case the manager was mic'ed up and you can hear the umpire crew clearly saying "We have to get it right ..."

The game received justice as a result as Napoli then hit into the gap for a double, clearing the bases in the process and allowing a team that was penalized, to not be. Correctness won over pride, or even tradition.

Kudos for the crew for this. We should all aspire to this "get it right" behavior for every match we do.

You can see the whole article, and video here, from CBS Sports.

... and as a post script ... there was no instant replay used folks.

Professional Courtesy Goes a Long Way

I have to say after watch Games 5 and 6 of the ALCS, being a MLB catcher looks like no fun at all. Here is one view why:



Ouch.

Avila would eventually leave Game 5 due to this collision with a knee injury, but return for Game 6.

Game 6 was not much fun for Avila either as besides the Tigers losing the game to put the Red Sox in the World Series, he took a wicked hit from a foul tip right in the mask. It is what happened just before and just after that got my attention though.

Immediately before the mask cracking foul tip, home plate umpire Dan Iassogna to start the inning cleaned home plate as they typically do. Well only a few pitches later, Avila was hit and clearly stunned by the foul ball. It was obvious on the video as he swayed back and fourth and went to his knees for a second.

No doubt Iassogna was concerned as you could almost make out the two talking through their masks. Now, to save the embarrassment of a trainer coming out, Iassogna himself stalled the game to give Avila a few extra moments to collect himself ... by cleaning an already clean home plate.

There was no reason for Iassogna to do this except as a professional courtesy to Avila to give him an extra second.

It to me highlighted the special relationship home plate umpires and catchers share throughout a game as so much of the game is decided right there between those guys.

It was really cool actually, and makes me wish catchers and home plate umpires were mic'ed up ... well ... maybe not after seeing this (explicit language warning ... it is funny though and highlights different traditions in different games):

Touche

You have to love a referee with a sense of humor.

Here is a classic!!

Requiescat In Pace Blue

Veteran MLB umpire Bell, 48, dies of heart attack

NL crew member's resume includes one World Series, three All-Star Games

LOS ANGELES -- There was only one umpiring crew working Monday night when word of Wally Bell's death circulated, which made the ensuing hours very difficult, especially for six members of a very tight umpiring fraternity.

Bell, a veteran umpire with 21 years of Major League experience, reportedly suffered a massive heart attack on Monday in his hometown of Youngstown, Ohio. He was 48.

Crew chief Gerry Davis was informed of the news about an hour before first pitch of Game 3 of the National League Championship Series between the Dodgers and Cardinals in Los Angeles. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of MLB.com.

Kicking Back Comments: A very sad day for his family, blood and refereeing, and indeed for us all. Today we all bleed blue.

Apparently even other MLB pitches think Dempster was "bush league"

Baseball Players Don’t Have a Problem with A-Rod via an ESPN Poll

Last week Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz came to the defense of Alex Rodriguez in the wake of the Ryan Dempster plunking on Sunday Night Baseball. If an ESPN confidential player poll is to be believed, Ortiz isn’t alone in the pro-Rodriguez camp. ESPN the Magazine interviewed 36 current MLB pitchers anonymously and asked them if they wanted to bean A-Rod?

Their answer: 100 percent no. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of TheBigLead.com.

Kicking Back Comments: Hmmmm ... That's pretty compelling stuff actually.

There were a couple of other things that caught my eye from the actual survey results (from the above link to ESPN).

First, was this:
4. If the 211-game ban were put to a vote with players, what percentage would side with A-Rod?
Average answer: 43.6 percent

Staggeringly precise answer aside ... it is actually a pretty small number. Far smaller than I would have ever thought.

Second, was this one, which was illuminating:

8. What percentage of players do you think is still violating MLB's drug policy?
Average answer: 7.1 percent

Wow. Honestly, I think that one is scary as I interpret this one as "How many do you have actual knowledge of that are still violating the MLB policy ..."

If it is near 10% this is really a serious issue ...

But like the NFL and NBA, MLB just does not care I would opine.

Take a look at the whole ESPN survey, it does paint a picture, and one that is not good at all.

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.

Chicken S%!t and Chicken Little went to a Red Sox Game ...

Sounds like a joke worth hearing, right? Well I can do better. Here is the joke, it's worth the 3 mins:



So in this saga, Ryan Dempster is Chicken S%!t on many levels.

First, is the cowardly play of plunking Alex Rodriguez. I happen to believe that the act of intentionally hitting a batter, and lets be clear, this was an intentional act, is the act of a coward.

Yes, yes, yes ... Dempster was sending "a message" to A-Rod. Maybe it was about his suspected PED use, maybe it was because of the Red Sox - Yankees rivalvary, maybe it was because A-Rod stole his girlfriend.

We'll just never know because Dempster, in his second act of cowardice, refused to admit he threw at A-Rod intentionally. You would figure all that honor in protecting the game he would at least say why he did it.

Nothing.

Coward.

Farrell came down a peg too, actually backing his pitcher. Not just saying something like, he was heated ... we are always emotional ... but actually affirmatively defended the act in some twisted buffoon like statement.

Pahlease.

Finally, who the does Dempster think he is, the MLB enforcer? What act of ego makes this man think he can summarily take things into his own hands and throw fastballs at an open target?

By the way, he really sucked at it as it took him (4) tries to finally land one. Keep that stat in mind, and the fact (3) other Red Sox were hit AFTER this travesty.

Enter Chicken (too) Little, Brian O'Nora. It pains me to write this honestly as I think he is a hell of an umpire. He really blew this one IMHO however, as the only one ejected, was the guy who did the right thing, the NY Manager Girardi, for defending a defenseless player from being intentionally thrown at.

So lets look at the facts again.

Obviously A-Rod is in some deep crap with his impending arbitration hearing regarding the use of PEDs. His day is coming soon.

Clearly there is no love lost between the Sox and Yanks anyway, and if your humble host knows it, the whole universe should as I am not what I would call a baseball guy. With this rivalry, the umpiring crew should have been on alert anyway.

Well when A-Rod got up and the crowd reacted as they did, the crew really should have taken note, if they did not already. But, as thing so, so far, so good, as the crew can not prejudice a decision.

Well, after Dempster's fist pitch is where is goes downhill ... as the video shows, he threw behind A-Rod. Now this was not an off speed pitch that got loose, or something even close. Dempster was looking to plunk A-Rod, and everyone knew it ... even the crowed who roared in appreciation. Just listen.

Right there ... RIGHT THERE ... O'Nora should have warned Dempster. A shot across the bow to let him know that he was going to do something to keep things under control.

A warning RIGHT THEN to Dempster may have saved this game.

As we know, O'Nora did not, but had a 2nd and 3rd bite of the apple with pitches 2 and 3 which were WAY inside. One at the waist, one at the knees.

While O'Nora missed his moment of truth with pitch 1 ... he could have recovered, and even if he didn't want to make a show of it, have a word with his catcher and say that if he hits A-Rod, he goes ... then call a time out to let the catcher walk out to pass on the message.

None of that happened, and pitch 4 came, and plunked A-Rod.

So how did O'Nora immediately respond? Not by dealing with the guilty party, the Chicken S%!t coward Dempster, he warned both benches.

What?!?

Here's a pro tip boys and girls, if you deal with what caused the issue, you will have to deal with the fall out a lot less.

Do we think if O'Nora tossed Dempster at the 1st attempted to hit A-Rod, this would have happened?

I would opine not, not even Farrell getting ejected. What is the argument, he didn't mean it?

Again Pahlease.

So what are we left with now, a pitcher who intentionally threw at a player is not suspended, his manager that condoned the action is not suspended, and a manager that defended a player who was intentionally plunked was suspended.

Oh, and both benches were warned ... which was meaningless as (3) more Yankees were hit after this whole thing. While they were truly not intentional, this crews credibility was already lost to me as we had come to the point in a match that not even a send off meant anything.

It was a stunningly poor decision from O'Nora who is an exceptional umpire.

It was also the very first time in my life I was really happy to see the Yankees beat the Red Sox.

Oh was a conflicted day I had.

Angel on (The Rays') Shoulder

There are relatively few opportunities for real trickery outside of feigning fouls in soccer.

One could certainly be penalties, or kicks from the mark. Another may be pass back to the goal keeper. There may be some opportunities during some set plays too, particularly corner kicks where I have seen some trick set plays used, at times with some success.

In all cases however, a referee has to be ready for it, and know what the appropriate result needs to be, without regard to what everyone else thinks.

Take a look at the clip below from the Rays v. LA the other day, and how nearly everyone in the park, media included, got it wrong, and it took super, duper, extra slo mo several times for folks to figure it out. Some I'm sure still don't get it.

The Rays of course, pulled it off to perfection, and Angel Hernandez had it the whole way, finally to the credit of the media, even without instant replay or some elaborate sensing device to tell us where the ball was.

Hat tip to Angel Hernandez for an outstanding call.

"The Don's" Latest (really good) Move

Yanks, Manchester City awarded MLS expansion team

In partnership of sports' biggest names, New York City Football Club to play in 2015

Major League Soccer Commissioner Don Garber announced today that a partnership of global sports powers, Manchester City Football Club and the New York Yankees, has acquired the League's 20th expansion club. The new team will be named New York City Football Club (NYCFC) and expects to begin play in 2015.

"We proudly welcome two of the most prestigious professional global sports organizations to Major League Soccer," said MLS Commissioner Don Garber. "This is a transformational development that will elevate the league to new heights in this country. The New York area is home to more than 19 million people, and we look forward to an intense crosstown rivalry between New York City Football Club and the New York Red Bulls that will captivate this great city." ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of MLB.com.

Kicking Back Comments: Say what you will about MLS and "The Don" (I for one have not always been positive) ... this is a shrewd move by MLS and it makes me happy to see growth in the league ... still.

Other than California, I agree with the point that the New York area should be able to sustain a 2nd MLS team.

Personally I would also love to see an expansion team in the New Bedford (MA), Northern Rhode Island area as well, as I have to believe a team may do well there too.

2018 expansion? 

120' Toss

So take a peek at this clip generously provided by MLB. There is quite a bit going on.



So we have Bryce Harper (stats) in the 1st inning of the Nationals v. Pirates the other week. A check swing that was appealed by the Pirates catcher, and was called a 3rd strike by 3rd base umpire, and crew chief, John Hirschbeck (bio).

Based on the account here, Harper gave him the "stink eye" and dropped his bat. From the video Hirschbeck obviously reacted, in an ... unorthodox manner.

It was actually quite clever as it gave Harper the opportunity for pause and just walk away as (in Hirschbeck's words) "... he was trying to show me up."

From there, there were (2) subtle management pieces going on. First was at :12 of the video when the home plate umpire engages Harper from reacting any more than he did already by dropping his bat, it would seem in protest.

Also, at :16, you can see Hirschbeck walk toward home plate, and stop for the 3rd base coach and send him to talk to his player.

From there Harper throws his helment (for the 2nd time this year) and was ejected.

A staggering analysis can be found here at the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League.

So there was good and bad for me in this one from all sides.

Harper was wrong to "show up" Hirschbeck through his actions, and was properly ejected for it, full stop.

Hirschbeck was unorthodox, some say inflammatory, in his actions by raising his hands, and may have done better to just yell and point (being 120' away makes some of this tough), and his action may have been a way to try and bridge that distance. It may have also been an attempted technique that went wrong. (These guys don't get AAA games to try new tactics out remember)

Hirschbeck was still justified to send Harper for his conduct, that was even after being spoken to by the home plate umpire, and 3rd base coach.

Closing comments go to Harper as in looking at the interview here, I though Harper came off a lot better personally ... and in the big leagues folks (future MLS and FIFA guys take note), this stuff matters a bunch.

If you respect umpires Caple, then act that way

Like many I have been looking at the mess around the lack of a single player inducted into the Baseball HOF in 2012.

What a joke on so many levels. First is the group who casts votes ... Baseball "writers." Come on ... other than siting on their a$$es watching and writing, what do they know about the game?

As evidenced by some recent articles, not all that much. In fact so much so the oft repeated expression about "... those who can't do ... teach." should be revised to "... those who can't do ... write about baseball."

It's no surprise that there were no players inducted into the HOF this year, and the overwhelming reason being bandied about it the "silent referendum" on the use of PEDs.

So who made the know little press experts on PEDs, their use, and the morality involved in those who are associated with them?

Well it's about cheating some say. Cheating? What about Gaylord Perry? Here is a player who was a known cheat for altering baseballs during the game ... and yet is in the Hall?

Yeah, but that's not dealing with PEDs.

Well neither is Clemens, or Bonds as both were cleared of any charges regarding PEDs (Bonds was convicted on an obstruction charge). Where's the beef guys? Are you telling me that a group of reporters knows better than our Criminal Justice system in determining guilt? Really? How incredibly arrogant of these writers.

What really frosted my cookie, and caused this rant was The HOF's future imperfect tense written by Jim Caple of ESPN. It's an excellent article worth a good read. One I largely agree with.

Where we depart in our opinions, is in his nearly mocking tone of the induction of Hank O'Day. Here is a guy who was a pitcher and umpire in MLB for 37 years. He worked the 2nd most number of games EVER in MLB history, and worked 10 World Series.

Caple's comment:

"Former umpire Hank O'Day, who, well, was an umpire."

Nice Caple. Here is someone who served the game for 1/3 of a century, and your comments amount to, yeah I guess those guys count too ... sort of.

How pathetic.

He continues with:
All of those "Hall of Famers" -- elected by something called the Pre-Integration Committee

Again, pathetic. These folks have just as much invested as players, and should be treated with just as much respect. Caple is called on to take responsibility for a daily baseball column, O'Day for a thousands of MLB games and 10 World Series. You do that math.

Now, trust me, I did not miss the satirical point of the article as fundamentally I agree with what he is saying, and enjoyed the article. What he did not need to do was skewer others (than players inducted) to make his point. Particularly those like O'Day, who served with distinction.

Of note from the article:

I mean, are these the sort of people we're going to honor with plaques on Cooperstown's walls rather than the players we cheered so lustily and who made us feel so good? Old owners who financially abused players and perpetuated racism (Ruppert, Charles Comiskey, Tom Yawkey)? Owners who moved teams 3,000 miles away from their fans (Walter O'Malley)? Owners who charged outrageous beer prices? Commissioners who were ineffective and stubbornly stuck in the past (Kuhn)? And umpires? I mean, I respect umpires, but c'mon.

The link points to a call that was missed back in 2009 from Game 2 of the ALDS between the Yankees and Twins. C'mon indeed. What does THAT call, have to do with anything?

The answer to Caple's rhetorical question about "... are these the sorts of people we're going to honor ..." is a resounding YES YOU MORON! Why not? I'm not a particular fan of some things some of these folks did either, but why do the media think they are imbued with the authority to make moral judgments?

Let's take O'Day just as one sliver of this ... his "crime" ... he was an umpire (cue dramatic music). Why shouldn't he be considered and fully accepted as a Hall of Famer? People should be in awe of such a record, not suggest he was just an umpire. Please.

People serve in different ways, and in this case to suggest anyone other than a player is not a real inductee is crap. I even extend this to the media folks who see fit to malign those who actually participate in weaving the fabric of the game's history, not just sit up on high, and wax pathetic on it.