Yesterday, John Shulock ejected Lou Piniella, who proceeded to cover the plate with dirt. After Piniella left, Shulock refused to sweep the plate, allowing Dan Wilson to borrow his broom, presumably to atone for his manager's wrongdoings. Wilson swept the plate and returned the broom. At first I thought this was both precious and hilarious, but now I wonder if Shulock should have taken the high road and just done his job. What do you think?

<img src="http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/mlb/2002/0528/photo/a_piniella1_i.jpg"> <img src="http://espn.go.com/media/mlb/2002/0528/photo/a_piniella_i.jpg">

P-Sz

Once back when Jimmy Piersall was playing with the Mets, he warmed up the pitcher between innings and, while doing so, completely covered the plate with dirt. The fans noticed, but the ump was away from the plate somewhere. So everybody started laughing in anticipation of the ump's reaction, and when the ump returned to the plate to start the inning, he acted surprised and then slowly took out his broom and began to sweep the plate as if it were going to be an enormous task. It really lightened up the game.

Of course, Piniella's episode is different and involves hostility, so it's not really comparable.

OK,
 

While I do not, in anyway, condone what Pinella did I do believe that he is part of the game and part of the show.

I was embarrassed to be an umpire when John did what he did.

John has just proved he is EVERYTHING negative that people say about him.

Don't get me wrong . . . Pinella was wrong . . . John just made it worse.

It was a stupid play.

Living in Seattle, being an M's fan and umpire I give a thumbs ump to Shulock. I wouldn't call it the most professional thing an umpire could do, but there are certainly a lot worse actions he could have done.

In a quick review of the book I was unable to find anything regarding sweeping of the plate so by default I would base his actions on 9.01 c) "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules." Although technically it's not a rule he covered.

Additionally, even thought it appeared Wilson asked for his broom, 9.01(b) states "...Each umpire has authority to order a player, coach, manager or club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything which affects the administering of these rules, and to enforce the prescribed penalties.

How many times have we asked players to dust dirt off a base after sliding into a base so it can be seen?

It would certainly been interesting to see what would have happened if the catcher, Dan Wilson, would not have stepped up and swept the plate. How long would it have gone on with the plate being covered? IMO it would have been a disgrace to baseball to have had play resumed with the plate completely covered - and btw - Bud is doing a good job of disgracing MLB on his own!

In Pinella's defense, by not sweeping the plate Shulock does provide some hint of Piniella's argument that he (Shulock) does have "has a chip on his shoulder. He's always had a chip on his shoulder."

This is the same thing we try to point out to coaches, it isn't the bad call that got you ejected, it's the way you responded to it.

Shulock is just as guilty as a coach who responds to a play inappropriately. What Pinnella did, he did. It was wrong. (even if replays show that Shulock was his usual inconsistent self) Shulock, however, chose to respond inappropriately and punish Wilson, the entire Mariner defense and the fans. He had his own quiet yet visible tantrum on the field, and then chose to be hostile to the media, complaining about past treatment by the press. His actions were bush, pure and simple.

Hopefully, he will be fined as much as Pinella.

Shulock was absurd. Umpiring is not about ego. I have no problem with the ejection, but afterwards he should have behaved like a professional and done his job rather than like a spoiled child.

Sound familiar?
 

I found this in the archives:

From the Standard-Times, 9/25/99

<b>"John Shulock became the second umpire to be disciplined this season when he was suspended by the American League yesterday for three games for his "display of temper" in a game this week. AL president Gene Budig, in his first major decision since being told his position was being terminated by commissioner Bud Selig, suspended Shulock for the final three games his crew is to work this season and fined him an undisclosed amount. The penalties were levied, Budig said, for Shulock's "overly aggressive behavior, display of temper, inappropriate remarks and physical contact" with Tampa Bay catcher Mike DeFelice during and following the Devils Rays' 10-5 loss to the Anaheim Angels on Monday"</b>

Shulock just needs to stay away from the Devil Rays. Heck, we all need to stay away from the D-Rays.

I saw comic relief in Shulock's actions. I know that we are to be silent participants of a game, but is that always possible? We can boot a call, miss a pitch, listen to chirping and even loose our cool. Human nature. It is also pretty common that we carry an ego to some extent. Because we KNOW the right call or ruling, plus some of us were competitive athletes at one time and that can take over in a confrontation. We never really know what was said down there, I am sure it can get really personal. I saw a game last year in SF and Benito Santiago refused to throw the ball to the pitcher that an umpire was trying to hand to him. The ump got tired of it and slammed the ball in front of Santiago on the plate and just waited. The game resumed and Benny was dumped 2 pitches later. I have no idea what caused that, the catcher throws his pitcher the ball...part of the job description. Not to say that John Shulock was right given what we know, and we never will, but I got a good laugh. No black eye on umps, just John. I mean, are all pro boxers ex-con rapists with out of control tempers that threaten to eat their opponent's kids...or is it just Tyson? Don't let the action of ONE supercede all the benevolent ones in the same arena. JT

My hat's off to Shulock. I'm an Old Testament Christian, i.e., an eye for an eye. If Pinella thought he could get the best of Shulock, then he was flat wrong. Shulock got the last laugh.

<i> Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski </i>

Patrick, while I admired Lou Piniella as a player, there is simply no excuse for his behavior as manager. He has done this kind of stuff before.

I fully understand at the major league level, tempers flare and sometimes managers want to get thrown out to <i> light a fire under their team </i>, however, there's a way to get ejected without at a total disregard for the game and sportsmanship.

Joe Torre gets thrown out, but he doesn't act like Lou Pinella. IMO Lou should be fined and suspended.

We wonder why we have problem with coaches as they see this act and want to be Lou Pinella / Billy Martin wannabies.

Pete Booth

<B>"My hat's off to Shulock. I'm an Old Testament Christian, i.e., an eye for an eye. If Pinella thought he could get the best of Shulock, then he was flat wrong. Shulock got the last laugh."</B>

Ah, yes...and soon we have a blind, toothless world.

I may be mistaken, but the Christian movement is more closely associated with the New Testament. You'll remember that one, it's about forgiveness.

Pinella was wrong, no doubt. But this thread was started as a request for comments on Shulock's unprofessional behavior. What Pinella did cannot excuse the conduct of Shulock. No one was trying to get a "last laugh". Pinellas was out of control. Laughing was the last thing he was thinking of.

But the umpire is specifically paid to be in control. John Shulock failed in his job.


[Edited by GarthB on May 30th, 2002 at 01:44 PM]

Garth, most excellent
 

We have posters that are telling us that is was OK and refer to RULES . . . We have Chris telling us "an eye for an eye" . . .

None of us have said Pinella's action were acceptable . . . we all make the comment that Schlock had a chance to be above the issue and failed . . . miserably.

I am embarrassed, yet again, for Major League Baseball.


Thanks John.

As a trial attorney who has tried many hotly contested civil cases to verdict and through appeal, I learned with experience that no matter how much provocation a plaintiff lawyer throws at me, it is always better to take the high road. It is tough to not respond in kind.

With experience, I've learned the same rule applies in umpiring. In the long run, the high road pays dividends. I do somtimes make mistakes and allow some idiot coach to provoke me.

Shulock made a mistake that we can all learn from. But his was no "embarrassment" to the game; the game is bigger than that. But like watching Tiger Woods duff an iron shot, it's nice to see the pros make the same mistakes we amateurs do.

Forgiveness for the repentant, yes. It is a common misconception that Christianity advocates forgiveness of all. No, instead we must be WILLING to forgive all; that is, we cannot forgive someone unless they want to be forgiven, but we should always treat them with the kindness and respect that may foster repentance and our unconditional response of forgiveness. God does not forgive those who do not want to be forgiven (John 3:18); we should not have a higher standard of behavior than God (Luke 11:4).

Matthew 5:38-42, regarding turning the other cheek, is certainly applicable in this situation.

Anyone who wants to discuss these theological points, e-mail me privately.

Are Shulock and Piniella Christians? Is Piniella sorry? Is Shulock willing to forgive? These are private matters between God, Piniella, and Shulock, and it is not our place to judge their status. It is our place to judge their actions. Piniella was surely wrong in his tantrum. Judging Shulock's actions is the original question of this thread. Yes seemed to be wrong in getting a little vengeance on the Mariners; he should have taken the high road.

But please, when you apply Christian principles to a totally secular situation, you have to be very careful. We cannot expect non-Christians to abide by the Bible--they have no reason to do so. We can, however, stand up for what is right, in Christ.

P-Sz