Girardi/ARod double dip ejection
 

I know some here get tired of this, but this one was pretty good, as it involved Marty "Doesn't have to tag him" Foster. Also because the pitch involved was in the 4th...and the EJ happened in the 5th- apparently Girardi had a chance to go look at a replay of certainly looked like a fairly low and VERY outside pitch. The story is circulating that A-Rod was not only unhappy about the pitch, but about a supposed ongoing conversation between Foster and the Oriole C.

Two Yankees for the price of one.


Its also fun as Girardi pitches a genuine Piniella - type fit, making a gesture apparently indicating the size he thinks Foster's manhood is..:D

1. You are repeating a myth created by a rat. Marty did not say that.

2. The pitch was up enough but a bit outside. I wish all "misses" were as bad.

3. Who gives a sh!t what A-rod is unhappy about?

A-Roid is a crybaby!

MLB guidelines are instant ejection for anyone using video replay to argue a call, period (The only exception would be asking for review on a home run per the new instant replay rule prior to the next pitch / play).

Girardi is looking at a suspension & large fine for his actions. A-Rat a fine for running his mouth & starting the mess.

[QUOTE=MrUmpire;625359]1. You are repeating a myth created by a rat. Marty did not say that.=QUOTE]

Is that what Marty told you?

[QUOTE=realistic;625389]I have heard the same from two independent sources whom I trust -- one of whom got it directly from Marty.

I have replayed this video several times, and I can't see where that pitch is 'very outside'. Holy Cow, am I missing something here?

[QUOTE=realistic;625389]He told it to a relative whom I trust explicitly.

I heard the exact same explanation from a AAA crew this summer. I guess it comes down to who do you trust...Marty or a Rat?

I'll take Marty.

No you are correct, AR should have hit the pitch, he just couldn't pull the trigger. Maybe a ball, but very close IMO.

Thansk
David

The pitch was "fairly low" and "VERY outside"? Let me guess, OP is a Yankee fan?

Too close to take. Perfect pitchers pitch. Foul it off A-ROID!

Ya think? Girardi was fun to watch do a Piniella? Sounds like a dyed-in-the-wool fanboy to me, enjoying watching a rat go off on an umpire. Sheesh, even when Bud Black comes out on the umpire, I root for him to get run as soon as possible. I root for the umpire in rat/umpire confrontations.

Give Lou P credit
 

A-rod got dumped the next inning, an idiot.
Arguing a call after the other teams at-bat, classic A-rod.

Girardi got dumped the next inning, not very Lou like.

As far as the pitch, it was 3 (ball outside), 2 (strike at the knees) count.
Better swing baby!

That definitely was a 'grab some pine, meat' pitch. A strike all day long in my games.

[QUOTE=MrUmpire;625579]All I'm saying is that Marty Foster is not on record for saying that. Your account came off sounding like you were standing within earshot and heard the whole conversation. The closest thing there is to a quote on this subject is hearsay.

I will always believe the umpire before the player. If there would be one player that I would believe, it would be Jeter. Everything said about his character and demeanor is true. He is as nice a guy as they come.

~Cripes~
 

Dear Fanboy:

Many of the posters on this site have direct conversations with not only Marty but other MLB umpires.

The story of ALL professional umpires of the situation seem to tell the story you have read here.

The conversation DID NOT go as Jeter intoned -- it was very similar to what is posted here AND Marty's crew chief threw him under the bus by speaking to the press BEFORE he even spoke with Marty about what was said.

Take your shots at what was posted but it was VERY ACCURATE.

T

I am also uncomfortable with the calling of Jeter a rat. I love this game and respect it to almost no end. Jeter and his play and his achievements are a credit to the game. He's a first-ballot, no-brainer Hall of Famer and a champion. Of the 750 players, there are some true rats---there always are. But to brand one and all is preposterous.

Perfect example: Eddie Murray. People everywhere talk down about him, and some can't even stand him. His detractors all have one thing in common: They don't know two things about the guy. He's as classy and decent a guy as there ever was in this game, and I have heard several noted veterans--Winfield, Scioscia, Hershiser, Ripken, Dempsey, Griffin and others--say that Murray's the finest teammate they ever had. But by prejudging him, he's a rat, too. Well, not the way some of us see things.

Dear Tee:

I am no longer "actively" running the Yankees organization.

Yours truly,
George Steinbrenner

That's funny Mike.

I wouldn't trust Jeter as far as I could throw him, which is not far. All players are rats at heart, no matter what they appear to be on the outside. That is the first lesson taught at umpire school.

"My momma always said, Rat is as Rat does."

Jeter knowingly lied to his manager and to the press. I doubt it was the first time. There is often a huge descrepancy between one's public image and one's true character.

Pete Rose is a good example; Mickey Mantle was another.

You're not implying that Pete Rose is of good character, are you? Because his public image is awful, and his true character is definitely in keeping with that.

His public image is awful now, but it wasn't when he played.

Thank you.

It was somewhat common knowledge in the 1970s and 80s that Pete Rose had a string of illegitimate children from coast-to-coast. He had a paternity suit array that would make a rock star proud. His womanizing became a true public spectacle by 1984, when he impregnated and married his Philadelphia Eagle cheerleader girlfriend.

Rose also was caught smuggling cash from Japanese autograph shows and selling memorabilia that was reported stolen or sold fraudulently claiming they were used in milestone games.

Pete is infamous for good reason. And his illustrious rampage was rather well-known while he was still in his prime and while he managed.

What you write of here was not generally known. No doubt some, such as you, were aware, but, according to SI and others who kept track of such things on a current basis, it was not widely known.

Mr. Hustle was what most people saw and thought they knew, and it referred to on the field behavior, not in the alleys.

If you chose to ignore it, then it was not known to you. It was widely known.

I agree. I had never heard of illegitimate children, and I lived in Ohio (where Rose and the Reds played) and saw several Reds games in the 70s.

He was "Charlie Hustle."

Okay, if you never heard of it, then you chose not to.

I was a teenage baseball fan, for crying out loud, and I knew. I knew he was a scumbag and a fraud as far back as the mid-70s. It was public knowledge.

I went to college with John Bench's former girlfriend, and she pretty much said the exact same things about Bench, Rose and several other Reds. She was a true Reds Annie.

That's absurd. I'm reporting my experience, not my choices. If you think I'm lying about what I heard, then I'll merely say that you're entitled to your opinion.

I apologize. I didn't mean to demean your personal feelings.

I think what I was trying to touch on is the natural unwillingness anyone can be expected to have to know the things about Rose that would tarnish the image of that all-out-all-the-time scrapper that we admired so much for his style of play and his being a big-time winner. I had it too, and I wasn't from Ohio. When I found out about him, it was a crusher, because I loved the game, and he played like I tried to play. I didn't dive all the time, but I learned to push the envelope by watching him. If I was a Reds fan, I would have been that much more devastated. So, I didn't mean to seem that haughty about it.

I have had to shut myself off to a lot of stuff about some guys just to admire them at all. And with all the cheating going on within the game now, it's even harder than ever before. Growing up worshiping guys like Roberto Clemente and Harmon Killebrew, I guess my standard got set too high. Today, you see guys like Torii Hunter and Vlad Guerrero and you have to hope that they're really as cool as they seem, because, in my case, my son worships them. They don't come any better than those two--or so it would appear.

But it all comes down to how guys go about keeping their private lives private. Public figures have a right to a private life. We have a right to be spared from knowing about their private lives. But when Rose went about his private life, he was far too reckless, and he disappointed a vast legion of admirers. On a smaller scale than you, I was one.

1. B does not logically follow A.

2. I would bet that the majority of baseball fans, much like MByron and me, did not know of Pete's many flaws until his retirement. I know of sportswriters who have written that they did not know of these accusations during his playing days.

It was part of common baseball conversation as of the mid-70s. It became a hot topic when Rose was mysteriously allowed to sign elsewhere, and Sparky Anderson was mysteriously let go. That was a full seven years before he was done playing.

It's no crime to choose to ignore it, I just covered that rather extensively. Pete Rose was one of the iconic players of any generation. It's disappointing when any icon's a scumbag. Ask any former fan of Barry Bonds.

Rose's loose behavior was common knowledge. I would expect you to differ.

You know of sportswriters who didn't know ... :D That's a good one.

{sigh}

Yes, I do. And it would be easy to quote them. It would be easy to cite his Sportsman of the Year and Man of the Year awards voted by sportswriters in the 70's. It would easy to quote from articles from the 70's. And it would easy to quote honest fans from the 70's.

It would be easy to debunk, to thinking people, you allegation of what was "common knowledge." It would be easy to quote fellow players from the 70's Reds who referred to him, pre manager days, as one of the greatest men then knew.

None of this says he was what people thought. We all know now that he wasn't. But, it would be easy to show that more didn't know that then, than did.

It would all be easy. But senseless. You still have this need to have the last word, to prove to the world that you are right and everyone else is wrong. So have it.

Or maybe this is just one of those times where, as you have said, we're "not even in the same league" as you. Maybe this is one of the many times you were better informed than the rest of the world. You knew more and better than most everyone else. Maybe that's so commonplace, you just assumed everyone knew what you knew.

I don't know.

I do know you can't tell people what they knew and what they didn't. Let me correct that, I guess you can tell them that, it just can't be done with certainty.

So, go ahead now. We're all waiting breathlessly for your final word and confirmation of how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.

Double Dipping Sportswriter
 

Common sportswriter knowledge of the day. "That guy will make a great manger one day." BTW, Pete was an outstanding manager considering what he did with 1/2 the talent.

Sparky was let go? I say he stepped down at the right time. The guy who replaced him was 0 for 3 in the playoffs. His next assignment only improved Sparky's fine reputation as a manager.
1984 Detroit Tigers season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't tell people what they know, but we most certainly can tell you what you don't know, and in this case, you certainly don't know. And I say that with certainty.

So that's how you think it is? Now I know, through your very words, why you didn't know: You are quite naive.

He appears quite accurate on two accounts to me. First, Rose's numerous flaws were not well publicized in the early and mid 70's. That can be documented.

Secondly, he knew, along with MByron and many others, that you would just have to have the last word. Always. Every time. Whether right or wrong. It's like you think that the longer you argue, the more correct you are.

I was speaking directly to his naive belief that people would make public quotations of what they know about their teammates' or colleagues' private lives. Or that journalists would publish anywhere near everything they know about someone--especially someone they like. That's naive. That's all I was referring to.

However, many of those same people may make private statements to many people. That's how it is or was.

My only contention all along is that Rose was so reckless with his private life that it became public knowledge during the 1970s. It did. I also defended anyone's tendency to not want to know about the misbehavior and misdeeds of one of the game's icons.

But this 153 guy went on about how if it wasn't heard by his ears or read by his eyes that it wasn't public knowledge. How did I know, if it wasn't public knowledge? I was hanging out in and around ballplayers in Los Angeles for crying out loud. It doesn't get much more public than that. I didn't see anyone else behave the way Rose did.

This is late in his run, but it speaks to his recklessness: In June of 1989, during the time Pete was being investigated by the commissioner's office, but still managing, he left the dugout during an inning and went to the clubhouse to watch the running of the Belmont Stakes! Tony Perez took over for a little while. It happened in a stadium full of people and hundreds, if not thousands saw him leave and come back right about the time that the results of the Belmont were posted on the message board. So that reckless bit of conduct was typical of Rose's style. And he pulled that beauty while they were investigating his gambling ties!

That reckless act was public knowledge. Did you know about it? I did; I watched it up close. So did a significant number of other members of the general public. Thousands, maybe. That makes it public knowledge. I watched it and many other reckless things that Rose did very publicly as far back as 1972. I read and heard of his paternity woes right then, in the mid-70s. That part of his little rampage through history is what made me stop admiring him. Other misdeeds of his that attracted the attention of baseball's leadership in the first place were also committed while he was still playing and managing, and were also widely known. Almost everybody I knew in baseball knew about most of the stuff that he was doing, but it was Pete Rose, for crying out loud! They weren't going to let that ruin the guy. It's the same brand of resistance that we have to have about any star or artist whose work we admire, but they're a scumbag in everyday life.

This debate sounds like ones that took place in our corner sports bar in 1989 and '90.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/imadansuer/sp.jpg

Lmao

You don't understand what public knowledge means. It is defined as "knowledge that is available to anyone".

A teammate knowing something about Rose and not telling the pubic does not make it public knowledge.

A journalist who interviews Rose and then never prints what he said does not make what he said public knowledge.

A private statement to someone does not make it public knowledge. See the definition above.

Once again that is a private statement. What the ballplayer said to you was not available for anyone to hear.

It, like most of the discussions involving the same posters, sounds like something you hear everday on the playgrounds when the second graders are out for recess.

Apologies in advance for insulting second graders.