Queen Prawn Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Since this isn't really about the , but baseball in general, I decided to post this question here. I've been thinking about this since I heard about the "warning" given to the and Rangers last night. Why do umps do this? Why not let teams settle things themselves? Like Coop said on the pre-game, sometimes holding the posibility of "revenge" over the other team's head is more advantageous than ever actually plunking a guy. I am guessing the reason is to protect the players and avoid . Sorry, but if one team plunks another once, twice or more, (and it was painfully obvious that it was not an accident) should they not have an opportunity to plunk back? Why should the umps take that card out of the plunked team's hands? They used to let the plunked team get their plunking in and then hand out warnings. Now, as soon as a batter is hit, both benches get warnings (or so it seems) and to me, that is weak. So now that I am done blathering on, what is your take on this subject? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Why do umps do this? the league tells them to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 Okay and that begs the question, why does the league tell them to do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) Okay and that begs the question, why does the league tell them to do that? good question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) Okay and that begs the question, why does the league tell them to do that? It's the wussification of baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach23 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Just my opinion, but I would say that this is due to the big dollars involved in baseball currently and the fact that the league believes that fans want to see nothing but the long ball. In the old days teams didn't make as much money, now they rake in billions from TV and advertising. So now if a team's star player takes one off the face and has to miss a ton of games, it could affect a team's marketing of that player. The league has fallen in love with the long ball and seems to be doing everything possible to give the hitters the advantage. The strike zone has shrunk down and all the warnings take away the inside of the plate from pitchers. If they make a mistake, they could get warned or tossed from the game. Unlike the old days, hitters have no fear of standing right on top of the plate. I think if the warnings went away and the umps went back to letting the players police this part of the game, you would see a steady decline in the amount of HRs as more pitchers brush guys back off the plate. And that I beleive is something the league doesn't want at all. Their view is that HRs bring fans and fans bring advertisers and advertisers mean dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hangar18 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) Okay and that begs the question, why does the league tell them to do that? The "league", or as I refer to them as The League of Extraordinarily Dumb Gentleman, does this in a foolish attempt to punish the team that RETALIATES, but doesnt acknowledge the team that INSTIGATES. Its a BS rule that the league has yet to acknowledge is archaic. What the MLB seems to be saying is, ITS OK TO HIT A PLAYER, But not Ok to Defend your player. Selig = Idiot QUOTE(zach23 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 10:14 AM) Just my opinion, but I would say that this is due to the big dollars involved in baseball currently and the fact that the league believes that fans want to see nothing but the long ball. In the old days teams didn't make as much money, now they rake in billions from TV and advertising. And that I beleive is something the league doesn't want at all. Their view is that HRs bring fans and fans bring advertisers and advertisers mean dollars. WOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) The "league", or as I refer to them as The League of Extraordinarily Dumb Gentleman, does this in a foolish attempt to punish the team that RETALIATES, but doesnt acknowledge the team that INSTIGATES. Its a BS rule that the league has yet to acknowledge is archaic. What the MLB seems to be saying is, ITS OK TO HIT A PLAYER, But not Ok to Defend your player. Selig = Idiot WOW You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with punishing the team that retaliates. It has EVERYTHING to do with preventing bench-clearing brawls. Too many of today's athlete's are freakin idiots that don't understand how the game can police itself. Today's egos and individualism won't allow it. In the past, a guy knew he was going to get plunked and when he did, he took it and headed to 1B. Hitters didn't dig in due to the fear of being knocked off the plate or plunked if they took too big of a swing. Now, guys want to charge the mound if they get hit by a freaking hanging curveball. MLB has to keep the game from becoming brawl ball and today's players don't get how to handle things without it getting to that point. Everytime I see a guy start mouthing off to the pitcher after nearly getting hit by a breaking ball, I want to puke! That is the reason for the rules. I hate them, but I understand them. Baseball is not hockey. Baseball is not a better game when there is a fight. That's not what the game is about and it is not needed to provide excitement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is an example of how the game can police itself. About 10 yrs ago I was umpiring a junior college game in southern Illinois. I was umpiring the bases and there was a runner on 2B. He was blatantly letting the hitter know what pitch was coming. At first he was actually yelling it out, then making hand motions. After a few times, the pitcher walked off the mound into the grass between the mound and 2B. He looked at the runner and said "You better f***in quit it". The runner laughed. He did it again the next pitch. The pitcher promptly turned around and said "you just got your guy hit". I was standing between the two and heard all of this. The next pitch he drilled the hitter in the middle of the back. The baserunner looked at me and "hey ump, he can't do that!". I looked at him and told him it was his damned fault. I said "he told you he was going to do it". I shook my head and said "you've got a lot to learn". There was no crowd so basically everyone was hearing all of this. Finally, the guy that just got hit, standing on 1B told his teammate to shut the hell up. The pitcher turned around and said "are we done or do we have to do this again?". Needless to say, the kid kept his mouth shut and his hands at his side the rest of the game. I saw his coach talking to him after the inning and his teammates laughing. The who thing ended right there. No retaliation. No more mouthing. Just baseball. I smiled and knew all was good with the game. Edited June 17, 2006 by Rex Hudler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I enjoyed your story, Rex. Damn, I love this game. I hope the owners and roiders don't ruin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 18, 2006 -> 06:46 AM) I enjoyed your story, Rex. Damn, I love this game. I hope the owners and roiders don't ruin it. Thanks Yas, I'm full of em. Note, I didn't type full of "it" on purpose. Edited June 18, 2006 by Rex Hudler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hangar18 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 QUOTE(zach23 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 10:14 AM) Just my opinion, but I would say that this is due to the big dollars involved in baseball currently and the fact that the league believes that fans want to see nothing but the long ball. In the old days teams didn't make as much money, now they rake in billions from TV and advertising. So now if a team's star player takes one off the face and has to miss a ton of games, it could affect a team's marketing of that player. The league has fallen in love with the long ball and seems to be doing everything possible to give the hitters the advantage. The strike zone has shrunk down and all the warnings take away the inside of the plate from pitchers. If they make a mistake, they could get warned or tossed from the game. Unlike the old days, hitters have no fear of standing right on top of the plate. I think if the warnings went away and the umps went back to letting the players police this part of the game, you would see a steady decline in the amount of HRs as more pitchers brush guys back off the plate. And that I beleive is something the league doesn't want at all. Their view is that HRs bring fans and fans bring advertisers and advertisers mean dollars. When I said WOW to this previously, I shouldve also said this was a very Good Post and theres a lot to be said about Zachs comments here, which are all pretty much true, let the players police themselves, which is what Hawk has been commenting on for a while now every time this happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.