A-Rod

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Apparently Toronto didn't read the Rich Ives book of paybacks as short, simplistic and unimaginative as it was.

It isn't MY payback book.

Apparently you didn't notice that the Monday plunk was "accepted". It was the Tuesday plunk that was judged as being over the line.

If you're going to umpire grown-up ball you'd better learn the unwritten part of the game.

And perhaps you should use the wink to show you're kidding.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It isn't MY payback book.

Apparently you didn't notice that the Monday plunk was "accepted". It was the Tuesday plunk that was judged as being over the line.

Judged by whom? A-Rod, the Yankees? The umpire?
If I'm the retaliator, I'm not too concerned with what the retaliatee thinks or the umpire. If more payback is deemed necessary then you take the consequences that come with it.
As I'm writing this I'm realizing that we're not on the same track.
I think what you're saying is that 2 HBP was over the line relative to the umpires judgement and what an umpire should allow or turn a blind eye to.
I was coming from the perspective of the offended. There's no rule, written or not that tells me how much hide I can extract in my payback.
I just have to weigh my primal desires against the consequences.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If you're going to umpire grown-up ball you'd better learn the unwritten part of the game.

I agree my thought process as an umpire is much different than that of a retaliator

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

And perhaps you should use the wink to show you're kidding.

I thought all good umpires would be insightful enough to catch the sarcasm