A-Rod
 

Alex Rodriguez got plunked with a fastball in tonight's Bluejays/Yankees game. He sure deserved it, especially after the bush league play he pulled in late May when he yelled "mine" while running the bases. I would've said hit the jerk harder, and take him out of the lineup for 4 or 5 days. Nobody who makes that much money should get away with making such a bad move.

To see the incident, go to:
http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news....jsp&team=home

On the box score, click the "3" in the top of the third inning column. Fast forward 10 minutes. I thought the umpires handled the situation very well, by issuing warnings to both benches after the incident, and later ejecting Clemens when he (once again) threw at a batter intentionally.

You don't get it.

He got his payback hit in the first game of the series on Monday and no one complained.

But no

The Jays decided that he didn't get hit well enough on Monday so they hit him again on Tuesday. It was the second payback pitch that got everyone upset. Once is OK. Twice is not.

Roger took care of that later in the game and everyone understood it - and no bench-emptying event happened on that one.

From what I saw last night on ESPN, I thought the Toronto pitcher should have been tossed. And not for just plunking Rodriguez, it was the action after. Rodriguez stands at the plate, the pitcher advances significantly toward him and appears to be challenging Rod to do something about it. After that get clears up, and some more jawing occurs, the pitcher agains advances toward Rod at 1st base and appears to be challenging him yet again. Sorry, but somebody who appears to be inciting a fight should be leaving early in my book.

No. Rodriquez, bat in hand takes a few steps toward the mound saying something to the pitcher.

The pitcher at first makes a normal after-delivery move in front of the mound, then, hearing Rodriquez, takes a couple of steps towards him, points to first and tells him to "just get your *** to first."

Not according to the video.

The pitcher makes another comment towards Rodriquez who then is the one who advances and has to be restrained.

This is big boy ball. It was handled well by the umpires.

You are correct, this is big boy ball, and perhaps that's the way MLB wants situations to be handled. But I really suggest you look at the videos and see where the altercations occurred. Rodriguez was barely out of the box, the pitcher advanced almost all the way to the plate. See that big crowd of people right in front of the plate? Now admittedly, Rodriguez gets restrained by his coach at first on the second incident, but again, see that big crowd of people at first? It was the pitcher he advanced and created the problems.

Are we looking at the same video? Rodriquez, BAT IN HAND, begins to move toward the mound, mouthing something. The pitcher reacts to Rodriquez and tells him to get his a$$ to first.

Again, from this video and the newscast later, the pitcher is on the mound giving Rodriquez some lip. In the close up you can see Rodriquez say "Are you talking to me?" as HE initiates the advance and is restrained.

That big crowd at first is there because Rodriquez is there. Notice they are not at the mound restraining the pitcher.

This much ado about nothing. These guys will deal with this. But Rodriquez is not an innocent. The sad thing is that after the current lying and cheating douchebag home run "king" loses his crown, it will probably be to another lying cheating douchebag, Rodriquez.

... and the logic is...
 

Hey-Rod, when you stop yelling at guys catching fly balls right near you--you won't get plunked.

Think the Jays forgot about it?

I remember the Yankee faithful defending their star when that incident happened:

"It's part of the game"

"He didn't distract anybody."

"A-Rod is a class act."

I think Garth used the term douchebag. Aptly put.

Ace

Sorry Garth, I had to correct you!!!!!

lying cheating crying whinning douchebag, Rodriquez

Once is fair game - and it happened Monday.

Twice isn't. The Tuesday plunk (the one being discussed) was wrong.

Rules citation please.

I think what is considered a sufficient payback is determined by the offended party.

You sure you're not looking at a replay of Monday's? Every replay I've seen of the recent one is nothing like what you describe here.

It's right there in the section about payback. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately MLB and most other leagues want to eliminate this very valuable section.

I didn't see the "I got it" play when it happened. They showed it tonight on ESPN. it seemed obvious that he interferred with the play. Did they call hin out for INT? I would hope so.

your kidding, right??? no verbal interferance in the bigs, mr Blue

This isn't the first time that Analrod has decided to whine and pick fights with other teams. He may be a steroid-taking, overpaid, naturally talented star, but that does not give him the right to pull bush league plays or whine when people get payback on him for doing it. I cannot recall a baserunner ever yelling "mine" or even "hah!" while on the bases. He did something exceptionally stupid, and being a multi-million dollar player, he deserves even more fastballs at the hands and elbow than your average MLB player.

I surmise you don't like him. :eek:

Btw, why no O Int for his bush league actions?

No I'm not kidding. My knowledge of the rules, though far from superior, will hold up in most cases, including this one.

OBR 2.00 - Interference (a) Offensive Interferences is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

What part of that means I "don't have verbal INT in the Bigs?"

The sitch looked like it impeded, hindered AND confused F5 trying to make a play (IE catch the ball).

7.08 Any runner is out when...(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball.

What am I missing? It was obvious intent (you don't normally run the bases hollering "I've got it") -so it meets 7.08, and it obviously confused F5 so it meets the definition in 2.00. According to the OBR that I'm reading, I've got an out. Plain and simple. OBR is used in the Bigs, so why not have INT on this play?

So I ask again, did they call him out for INT?

I'll help clear things up, as Larry Johnson is a smart *** who is probably giving you the interpretation from word of mouth. However the fact is that interference cannot be verbal. It's stupid that that kind of thing isn't covered in the Official Baseball Rules. However it is mentioned in "The Rules of Professional Baseball", which if you haven't heard of it, is a book by Jacksa and Roeder that covers stuff that is not covered in the official rulebook. The umpires did not rule Rodriguez out, because the interpretation of 7.08b is that interference cannot be verbal. I doubt that Larry Johnson has or is smart enough to read Jacksa and Roeder's manual, but he is correct in this case.

No. Major League baseball does not interpret the rule as you do. There is no verbal interference at this time in MLB.

Another person with no clue - great.

Now that makes sense. The interpretation does not include verbal INT. That's the kind of explanation that sinks in. JEA and PBUC do not reference anything verbal (that I could find) which still leads me to my original conclusion, in my own strange thought pattern. Although its omission may be an indicator that it "doesn't exist." However, I shall accept these explanations and accept that the JR makes reference to it.

Thanks, guys.

Do you mean "Jaska and Roder?":confused:

You shouldn't go around calling other people stupid. You sure didn't like it when everyone here said that about you, did you?

No Steve, I believe he meant Jaksa and Roder. :)

Let's not get ridiculous here, CO ump! You want a rules quote? Here, read it.....

OBR 8.02(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.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, circumstances warrant, both teams may be officially “warned” prior to the game or at any time during the game.
(League Presidents may take additional action under authority provided in Rule 9.05.)

Rule 8.02(d) Comment: To pitch at a batter’s head is unsportsmanlike and highly dangerous. It should be—and is—condemned by everybody. Umpires should act without hesitation in enforcement of this rule.

************************************


And that is what and how you enforce it in amateur baseball - to the letter!

But in professional ball, there is retaliation. There are no guidelines as to "how many times you can get satisfaction and when it is enough". You get it when you are done and and if you go too far, you'd better expect it to come back at you, ten fold!

That's your "rule", hope that you learned from it!

Well color me idiotic.:o

I have it sitting in front of me and can't get it right.

its ok mr Steve. aparently mr Ump6 can insult folks who werent' even adresing him all he wants where any post in which imay defend myself is deleted right away!! :D but thatsfine, we know where weall stand here, at least :)

i kinda had taken a shine tothe young man since he hada good time at the Coopers Town park and all but ibeen turned on and bitten instead lol learned my lesson thats for sure. just to keep it on a umping level yes mr Ump6 i know about J--Rs book and so on, thankyou for your kind attention to that issue.

i wasa bit harsh in my answer to mr Blue and i apoligize for that. im sorry i did that.

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

Ozzy,
I'm new on this board so I apologize if no one uses sarcasm, I don't mean to be a trailblazer.

Rich had said 1 intentional HBP was proper payback, 2 crossed the line.
I was sarcastically asking for the rules citation that said you can't hit a guy twice for payback.

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.

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.

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

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

What'd you do? Other than make me prove that I knew what the rule said and that I could find it easily in the rule book. I missed the interp of the rule, so what?

No need to apologize for making me get in the rule book, even if that's not where the answer was.

If I let a slightly smart assed response bother me, I need to hang up my CP and start needle point.

This post would run an English teacher outta 5 pens of red ink.;)

A-Rod is a punk. Plain and simple.

No apology needed, I was in a cranky mood this morning. Most of the posts stink until I read yours and I decided to give it my "gentle touch". :rolleyes: Just my way of sticking my 2 cents in. You need a thick skin here so enjoy. :eek:

Welcome to the board. :D

Do I remember you from RSO and days gone by?

rec.sport.officiating? I used to read that like 10+ years ago. I forgot about RSO. Is that Scott Taylor guy still there? It seemed like he knew everything. :D