MLB suspends Winters
 

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

NEW YORK (AP) -- Umpire Mike Winters was suspended by Major League Baseball for the remainder of the regular season on Wednesday because of his confrontation with San Diego's Milton Bradley last weekend.

The Padres claimed Winters baited Bradley, who has a history of losing his temper. Bradley tore a knee ligament when his manager spun him to the ground while trying to keep him from going after the umpire during Sunday's 7-3 loss to Colorado in San Diego.

Winters was suspended because the commissioner's office concluded he had used a profanity aimed at Bradley, a baseball official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the reasoning for the suspension was not announced.

thats what---3 games?


(memo to mlb: the seasons' over!!)

He could lose playoff games and the suspension could carry over into next season. Just have to wait and see if it comes out in a news release or not.

1. Isn't "confronting Bradley" wrong in and of itself?

2. Knowing the penalties for criticizing umpires, and imagining the penalties for making THAT kind of an allegation and not being able to back it up, why exactly would anyone make that up? (And please spare me your "he's a rat" garbage)

3. There has to be a better way to "stick up for his fellow umpire."

4. What "show" is "Bradley running?"

One thing that is mentioned over and over when discussing participant/umpire relations is that the offended manager/player should not "cross the line" in a discussion with the umpire. To do so invites an ejection, even if the call was kicked or a rule misinterpreted. In other words, argue properly or take a hike.

Now it seems to me that the same should hold true for the umpire. Keep it "proper" or risk the consequences. If the AP article is correct, Winters crossed a line.

I saw the video three times. Winters said/did something and BOTH Mecheam and Bradley immediately went toward Winters. Then Mecheam turned to head off Bradley. Something was said that pissed off both of them. Mecheam kept his cool enough to turn his attention to Bradley. Bradley "lost it".

I wish someone had interviewed whoever was F3 and added his comments to the articles and commentaries. That could shed more light on what happened. Perhaps MLB did so and it contributed to their action against Winters.

Bradley has a history. As far as I know, Mecheam does not have a history.

1. Not necessarily.

2. Based on what I've read, the coach has backed off his initial allegations.

(3 & 4 -- no comment).

Here's what I think. This was a typical "chain of events" scenario. No single action was "over the top", but when added together they lead to a negative situation. If any action had not occurred, we wouldn't have had this. (If Bradley hadn't flung the bat, if Runge would have noticed and addressed it immeidately, if Winters had stayed out of it, if Winters hadn't made a show of addressing it, if Runge hadn't brought it back up later, if Bradley had let it go, ...)

They were all to blame, and all have the "defense" of "well, he started it."

MLB is right to send them to "time out", and I bet MLB know more about the story then will ever be made public.

But he does have a vested interest in the outcome.

Well, like I said in the other thread, this will just give Winters a break before the playoffs.

If they would've just ejected Bradley in the fifth inning, none of this would have happened. Just evidence to show that "keeping people in the game" brings risks to the umpires, as well.

mr Devil: 'attention in the compound.... hes a rat. that is all' :)

Not necessarily. Like I said in my first post, I've been reading this forum since early this year when I found it looking for some insight into a rule interpretation I saw in a high school game. I've always had an interest in umpiring and I've found many things here interesting.

I only posted on this because I was at the game and thought maybe an eyewitness account might be of interest for the discussion. I probably would have posted earlier in the season when I saw some things of interest and had questions, but I didn't realize you didn't have to join the paysite to post. I don't consider anything I've done to be "trolling." I don't see how following up on the matter would be considered as such, unless your definition of a "troll" is someone who doesn't just blindly agree with your personal point of view.

:)

Not at all. This board, though, has had a lot of posters come (and just as quickly go) when something controversial happens involving officiating.

You're just as welcome as anyone else, although I hope you'll stay a while.

I've been wondering how many Padres Froemming will eject this coming weekend, though :)

Hey, Bob, do I have to get my freaking posts approved so you won't delete them? It's getting ridiculous around here. And you're being over officious, which I know isn't your nature.

Ok. I'd imagine that has happened, but I'm not into that kind of stuff.

Hopefully Bruce doesn't have to eject anyone. If he does, I'm 100% certain they'll deserve it.

I believe F3 was Todd Helton of the Rockies.

I read something on Monday that said he was asked about the incident and declined to comment. I'm reasonably sure that he had comments for MLB, however.

I'm sure he did, from what I've read in the past Todd Helton is a good guy and probably stood up for what was right.

I don't feel sorry for Bradley, but I also think Winters made a very poor judgement. It was not his call and he stuck his nose in his partner's business ...

I would hope that Winters would get no postseason because of this. Similiar to the NBA - give him a break and let him think about it, then bring him back next year.

Thanks
David