PDA

View Full Version : Dye suspended two games


Sockinchisox
05-15-2009, 02:26 PM
Cowley says Dye has been suspended two games because of his helmet throwing incident. No word on if he'll appeal or not.

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 02:28 PM
For his Cleveland ejection. What a bunch of garbage.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/

Chez
05-15-2009, 02:28 PM
That's just great. He almost has to appeal -- we don't have enough healthy outfielders without him!

GregO23
05-15-2009, 02:28 PM
Just got a text from ESPN that reads, "Jermaine Dye suspended 2 games for slamming helmet which bounced and hit home plate ump."

Wow that is crap, hopefully he gets it down to one like Milton

EDIT: Someone beat me to the topic a few seconds before me :(

DirtySox
05-15-2009, 02:32 PM
Saw this one coming.

Rohan
05-15-2009, 02:33 PM
It better get down to one. Dye's action did not even have malicious intent.

kobo
05-15-2009, 02:39 PM
What a joke. Soon a player will be suspended if they do anything other than walk back to the dugout after a strikeout.

TDog
05-15-2009, 02:58 PM
It better get down to one. Dye's action did not even have malicious intent.

Certainly Dye didn't have malicious intent, but he acted recklessly. That makes him still guilty, but to a lesser degree.

Dye deserved the ejection, and he deserves a suspension, but not in excess of a player who acted with malicious intent toward an umpire.

LoveYourSuit
05-15-2009, 03:00 PM
What a joke. Soon a player will be suspended if they do anything other than walk back to the dugout after a strikeout.

What the **** are you guys smoking?

He hit the damn umpire with his helmet :o:. Intentional or not, he still hit him.

He should appeal, and it will come down to 1 game because of his well behaved track record.

Rohan
05-15-2009, 03:00 PM
Certainly Dye didn't have malicious intent, but he acted recklessly. That makes him still guilty, but to a lesser degree.

Dye deserved the ejection, and he deserves a suspension, but not in excess of a player who acted with malicious intent toward an umpire.

Well that's my point. Either they lengthen Milton Bradly's suspension to two or three games, or they decrease Jermaine Dye's to one.

I think that he acted recklessly and it was a bad example. But this is his livelihood.

Chez
05-15-2009, 03:02 PM
Appeal; then drop the appeal after Anderson is activated. I can't take much more of Lillibridge.

LoveYourSuit
05-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Well that's my point. Either they lengthen Milton Bradly's suspension to two or three games, or they decrease Jermaine Dye's to one.

I think that he acted recklessly and it was a bad example. But this is his livelihood.



I knew the Cubsessed in some of our fans would come out for this. Who the **** cares about Bradly, seriously?

OT: Gee, crappy weather all week here in Chicago. And look, the Cubs are the ones with the scheduled home games. "But it only rains when the Sox are home :scratch:" :rolleyes:

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 03:07 PM
I knew the Cubsessed in some of our fans would come out for this. Who the **** cares about Bradly, seriously?

OT: Gee, crappy weather all week here in Chicago. And look, the Cubs are the ones with the scheduled home games. "But it only rains when the Sox are home :scratch:" :rolleyes:

It's relevent because Bradley has one of the worst track records in all of baseball and made contact with an umpire.

Dye does not have past incidents and unintentionally hit the umpire.

And yet, they received the same suspension. It has nothing to do with Bradley playing for the Cubs. If you can't see that, than I'm sorry.

Dye should have been fined, but not suspended.

Rohan
05-15-2009, 03:12 PM
I knew the Cubsessed in some of our fans would come out for this. Who the **** cares about Bradly, seriously?

OT: Gee, crappy weather all week here in Chicago. And look, the Cubs are the ones with the scheduled home games. "But it only rains when the Sox are home :scratch:" :rolleyes:

What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't matter if he's a Cub or not. Milton Bradley's case is the most recent example of a player being suspended for confrontation with an umpire. It's absolutely relevant.

Oh, and by the way, no one is complaining about it only raining when the Sox are home. Are you delusional? I even had bought tickets for todays Cubs game from a friend. You are quite ridiculous, my friend...

LoveYourSuit
05-15-2009, 03:14 PM
It's relevent because Bradley has one of the worst track records in all of baseball and made contact with an umpire.

Dye does not have past incidents and unintentionally hit the umpire.

And yet, they received the same suspension. It has nothing to do with Bradley playing for the Cubs. If you can't see that, than I'm sorry.

Dye should have been fined, but not suspended.


Honestly, Dye's actions of throwing an object which bounced an hit an umpire IMO diserve as much the penalty as Bradly.


It's the actions that get the penalty, not the damage.

What if that helmet would have taken a higher bounce and struck the ump on the nose?

It's the actions which got the penalty.

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 03:25 PM
Honestly, Dye's actions of throwing an object which bounced an hit an umpire IMO diserve as much the penalty as Bradly.


It's the actions that get the penalty, not the damage.

What if that helmet would have taken a higher bounce and struck the ump on the nose?

It's the actions which got the penalty.

I understand why you think he should get suspended, I don't agree, but I see what your saying.

But getting the same suspension as Bradley is complete garbage. A players history is taken into consideration in suspensions. Dye has no history and I don't think we need to even mention that Bradley's history is as bad as anyone in the game, right now.

TDog
05-15-2009, 03:29 PM
Honestly, Dye's actions of throwing an object which bounced an hit an umpire IMO diserve as much the penalty as Bradly.


It's the actions that get the penalty, not the damage.

What if that helmet would have taken a higher bounce and struck the ump on the nose?

It's the actions which got the penalty.

In the Anglo-American legal tradition, acting recklessly to injure someone demands a lesser degree of guilt than acting with the intent to injure someone.

If you want to play "what if," you could suspend any player who acted in any way reckless if there was any chance of causing injury. That is, the suspension would be warranted regardless of whether it hit the umpire.

Domeshot17
05-15-2009, 03:47 PM
His little tempter tantrum resulted in the ump getting hit with a helmet. 2 games is fair. Just sit them now and get it over with.

doublem23
05-15-2009, 03:51 PM
Doesn't MLB always make the suspension longer than they think it should be because they almost always get reduced if the player appeals?

I just want him to appeal it so hopefully Anderson is back by the time JD has to sit his game or two. Really not that big of a deal.

thomas35forever
05-15-2009, 03:57 PM
That's just great. He almost has to appeal -- we don't have enough healthy outfielders without him!
Agreed. When you're about to play the best team in the American League, you have to pull out all the stops.

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 04:03 PM
Doesn't MLB always make the suspension longer than they think it should be because they almost always get reduced if the player appeals?

I just want him to appeal it so hopefully Anderson is back by the time JD has to sit his game or two. Really not that big of a deal.

If you appeal it seems to get reduced. So, if he appeals and has a small injury and needs two games off, he'll probably just take it. That's why one game suspensions are stupid, you can appeal, then drop the appeal and take a game off on a rest day. Really, the whole process is stupid.

sunofgold
05-15-2009, 04:10 PM
What if a runner accidentally runs into or slides into an umpire? Does that warrant a suspension?


Or a pitcher throws a ball and it misses the catcher but hits the umpire. Does that warrant a suspension?

I think that you have to consider whether it was on purpose or not.

spawn
05-15-2009, 04:18 PM
What if a runner accidentally runs into or slides into an umpire? Does that warrant a suspension?


Or a pitcher throws a ball and it misses the catcher but hits the umpire. Does that warrant a suspension?

I think that you have to consider whether it was on purpose or not.
You're talking apples and oranges. Accidently running into an umpire during a play or a ball hitting the umpire because it wasn't caught cleanly by the unmpire are a little different than slamming your helmet down in frustration. I'm not saying I agree that he deserved a two-game suspension, but that's not even in the same ballpark as what you've described.

sunofgold
05-15-2009, 04:19 PM
Unless he is going to be a late scratch. Guess that he is appealing the appalling suspension. haha!

LoveYourSuit
05-15-2009, 04:20 PM
What if a runner accidentally runs into or slides into an umpire? Does that warrant a suspension?


Or a pitcher throws a ball and it misses the catcher but hits the umpire. Does that warrant a suspension?

I think that you have to consider whether it was on purpose or not.


Are you serious?

He just got done arguing balls and strikes with the ump and slammed his helmet on his way to the dugout. :rolleyes:

jdm2662
05-15-2009, 04:23 PM
What if a runner accidentally runs into or slides into an umpire? Does that warrant a suspension?


Or a pitcher throws a ball and it misses the catcher but hits the umpire. Does that warrant a suspension?

I think that you have to consider whether it was on purpose or not.

:?:

Um, I reffed soccer for seven years, and I got ran into and belted with the ball quite a few times during play. **** happens in competitions. Getting bumped when someone is bitching and complaining are two completely seperate issues. You don't make contact with officials that is not accidental during a play, period, end of conservation.

LoveYourSuit
05-15-2009, 04:23 PM
You're talking apples and oranges. Accidently running into an umpire during a play or a ball hitting the umpire because it wasn't caught cleanly by the unmpire are a little different than slamming your helmet down in frustration. I'm not saying I agree that he deserved a two-game suspension, but that's not even in the same ballpark as what you've described.

And slamming it down in frustration not of yourself but because of the call that umpire made.

sunofgold
05-15-2009, 04:40 PM
2005 WS MVP! Give the man a break! We were playing the Indians. hahah! Just fine him and set him free!

1989
05-15-2009, 06:11 PM
Just appeal this and it will drop to one game. Then wait till we play the pirates on the 24th for the day game and that will be his "suspension"

JermaineDye05
05-15-2009, 06:16 PM
If Josh Beckett can get his suspension reduced for his douchebag shenanigans then JD should be just fine.

AZChiSoxFan
05-15-2009, 06:51 PM
I knew the Cubsessed in some of our fans would come out for this. Who the **** cares about Bradly, seriously?

OT: Gee, crappy weather all week here in Chicago. And look, the Cubs are the ones with the scheduled home games. "But it only rains when the Sox are home :scratch:" :rolleyes:

And some people are obsessed about others being cubsessed. Who Bradley plays for isn't the point that's being made. The point is that player A displaying aggression towards an ump and player B slamming his helmet in disguest don't warrant the same suspension.