PDA

View Full Version : Maybe Hawk's Umpire Rant Made A Difference...


Lip Man 1
06-06-2012, 05:01 PM
Selig apparently has fired the guy who works with the umpires:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-report-selig-fires-mlb-executive-vp-solomon-20120606,0,5318189.story

Lip

TDog
06-06-2012, 06:34 PM
Or maybe not.

Quintana was ejected for obviously throwing at a hitter, a consequence provided for in the rulebook. It wasn't a call outside the rules, and there was no question of intent. There is no moral right not to be ejected from a game when you obviously throw at somebody.

Meanwhile, there have been some bad safe-out and in-play fair-foul calls tetting attention lately, and there is some disagreement in baseball as to future extension of instand replay.

hawkjt
06-07-2012, 11:05 AM
Soloman took a demotion from Operations for the umpire issues two years ago,and was shuttled to Development. Now he has been fired....hmmm...

Clearly unrelated to the Hawk umpire flareup.

As to the point about Wegner..once more,into the breech.

He was within the rules on the call,everyone agrees on that.
But,in hindsight,most observers agree that he should have warned both teams after AJ was hit,period...whole episode over.
By not warning after the AJ hit, he left the door open for the Sox to retaliate. His goal should be to avoid that. He could have ejected the Rays pitcher after hitting AJ also..within the rules...but did not,fine...but his judgement was wrong.

FielderJones
06-08-2012, 11:05 AM
He could have ejected the Rays pitcher after hitting AJ also..within the rules...but did not,fine...but his judgement was wrong.

Not applying the rule equally is my biggest beef of this whole fiasco.

BigKlu59
06-10-2012, 02:32 PM
Not applying the rule equally is my biggest beef of this whole fiasco.

Yup, Pretty obvious goose and gander situation... its this type of inconsistancy in all officiating in all sports that raises the eire of knowlegable and former participants.

BK59

soxinem1
06-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Not applying the rule equally is my biggest beef of this whole fiasco.

That is because it is a known fact that EVERYONE hates AJ, so if he was hit, he deserved it and had it coming.

TDog
06-13-2012, 03:21 PM
... He could have ejected the Rays pitcher after hitting AJ also..within the rules...but did not,fine...but his judgement was wrong.

This could be an essay question in an ethics class.

The umpire didn't eject the Rays pitcher because it wasn't as extreme as Quintana's pitch. You could argue that the umpire should have isused warnings after that incident. He probably should have. In effect, by not issuing warnings he dared Quintana to throw at a Ray's hitter. Still, if someone does something wrong after being dared to do so, it doesn't absolve him of the consequences of his actions. Quintana threw at a hitter in a way that left no question. At that point, the umpire pretty much had no choice but to eject Quintana.

It might be the umpires' faut for letting this back-and-forth thing go on for two games, and that is where you can have valid complaint is with the umpire. But Harrelson wasn't ranting about the umpires letting it get that far to the point where he had to eject Quintana. He was ranting about Quintana not being allowed a free shot. Ranting about how the umpire made an expletive call to eject Quntana for throwing a fastball behind a hitter has no moral high ground.

Harrelson acted like a jerk and was on the ethically wrong side of the argument. He was disciplined for it, and there is certainly no evidence the rant did anyone in or out of baseball any good.

PalehosePlanet
06-13-2012, 03:46 PM
This could be an essay question in an ethics class.

The umpire didn't eject the Rays pitcher because it wasn't as extreme as Quintana's pitch. You could argue that the umpire should have isused warnings after that incident. He probably should have. In effect, by not issuing warnings he dared Quintana to throw at a Ray's hitter. Still, if someone does something wrong after being dared to do so, it doesn't absolve him of the consequences of his actions. Quintana threw at a hitter in a way that left no question. At that point, the umpire pretty much had no choice but to eject Quintana.

It might be the umpires' faut for letting this back-and-forth thing go on for two games, and that is where you can have valid complaint is with the umpire. But Harrelson wasn't ranting about the umpires letting it get that far to the point where he had to eject Quintana. He was ranting about Quintana not being allowed a free shot. Ranting about how the umpire made an expletive call to eject Quntana for throwing a fastball behind a hitter has no moral high ground.

Harrelson acted like a jerk and was on the ethically wrong side of the argument. He was disciplined for it, and there is certainly no evidence the rant did anyone in or out of baseball any good.

This is funny. Quintana throws a warning pitch behind a player, not intending to hit him, yet that is more "extreme" than AJ actually getting drilled in the back? Priceless.

Humber threw behind Lehair during the Cubs series because Paulie was hit in the face by Samarzija. That umpire treated Humber's pitch as exactly what it actually was: a warning. At that time he issued warnings to both benches.

So if throwing a warning pitch behind a player is as "extreme" as you say -- apparently more so than an actual hbp -- why did the umpire in the Cubs/Sox circumstance have a choice, that you claim Wegner didn't have in The Rays game?

hawkjt
06-13-2012, 04:55 PM
Hawk was ranting about the fact that Wegner thru out Q, after the ump basically encouraged Q to retaliate for the AJ hit by pitch.

If Wegner warns both sides after AJ got hit, Hawk would not have gone off. It would have taken our young pitcher off the hook ,instead of being placed in a moral dilemma of his own...''do I not respond and alienate my teammates as a new guy who is trying to gain acceptance on the big club,or do I respond and send a clear warning to the Rays that I am protecting my teammates, after the ump has left that option open to me?''

Wegner put Q in a untenable position with his inaction. Thats what set Hawk off.

TDog
06-13-2012, 05:35 PM
This is funny. Quintana throws a warning pitch behind a player, not intending to hit him, yet that is more "extreme" than AJ actually getting drilled in the back? Priceless.

Humber threw behind Lehair during the Cubs series because Paulie was hit in the face by Samarzija. That umpire treated Humber's pitch as exactly what it actually was: a warning. At that time he issued warnings to both benches.

So if throwing a warning pitch behind a player is as "extreme" as you say -- apparently more so than an actual hbp -- why did the umpire in the Cubs/Sox circumstance have a choice, that you claim Wegner didn't have in The Rays game?

A fast ball thrown behind someone is not a warning pitch. It is a malicious pitch. It is recognized as being worse than throwing inside. Pitchers who throw behind hitters are ejected without warning around major league baseball. The ejections was far from unprecedented. Such ejections have been going on for years. Four years ago, Angels starter John Lackey was ejected two pitches into the game, not having been warned after his first pitch.

Why Humber wasn't ejected after the Konerko beaning, I don't know. It's possible the umpire realized he should have done more after Konerko was hit. I was surprised the Cubs pitcher wasn't ejected after hitting Konerko. It is likely that umpires were briefed about the incident and it contributed to a quicker White Sox pitchers throwing behind hitters.

Outside of Chicago, the rant still comes down as a whiney homer announcer screaming that his pitcher doesn't get a free shot. And I stand by my point that it didn't do anybody any good. It only made people look bad.

Boondock Saint
06-13-2012, 06:54 PM
A fast ball thrown behind someone is not a warning pitch. It is a malicious pitch. It is recognized as being worse than throwing inside. Pitchers who throw behind hitters are ejected without warning around major league baseball. The ejections was far from unprecedented. Such ejections have been going on for years. Four years ago, Angels starter John Lackey was ejected two pitches into the game, not having been warned after his first pitch.

It's ****ing hilarious that you're trying to paint this as a similar situation. Lackey threw behind Kinsler on the first pitch, and put the second one in his ribs. Lackey told Kinsler that he wanted to hit him with the first pitch, and actually did it with the second. Every ump makes that call. People in LA thought Lackey was a ****ing moron, and deserved what he got.

Lip Man 1
06-13-2012, 10:34 PM
Q threw behind the hitter but below his waste... big, big difference between that and throwing behind a hitters head. What Q did was not malicious, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

Lip

Domeshot17
06-14-2012, 09:03 AM
A fast ball thrown behind someone is not a warning pitch. It is a malicious pitch. It is recognized as being worse than throwing inside. Pitchers who throw behind hitters are ejected without warning around major league baseball. The ejections was far from unprecedented. Such ejections have been going on for years. Four years ago, Angels starter John Lackey was ejected two pitches into the game, not having been warned after his first pitch.

Why Humber wasn't ejected after the Konerko beaning, I don't know. It's possible the umpire realized he should have done more after Konerko was hit. I was surprised the Cubs pitcher wasn't ejected after hitting Konerko. It is likely that umpires were briefed about the incident and it contributed to a quicker White Sox pitchers throwing behind hitters.

Outside of Chicago, the rant still comes down as a whiney homer announcer screaming that his pitcher doesn't get a free shot. And I stand by my point that it didn't do anybody any good. It only made people look bad.


Is this a serious post? The only accurate statement you have here is the last paragraph, Hawk's rant was just embarrasing as usual. That said, no way, AT ALL, should Smadjzia been ejected for hitting PK. There was no intention there. It was a 2 strike Splitter or Sinker that just got away. It sucked, it was bad to see, but those things happen in baseball.

doublem23
06-14-2012, 09:32 AM
So if throwing a warning pitch behind a player is as "extreme" as you say -- apparently more so than an actual hbp -- why did the umpire in the Cubs/Sox circumstance have a choice, that you claim Wegner didn't have in The Rays game?

Well stated. Anyone whose actually thrown a baseball before should know that a ball throw well below a player's waist is probably not being thrown with malicious intent.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-15-2012, 10:05 AM
Harrelson acted like a jerk and was on the ethically wrong side of the argument. He was disciplined for it, and there is certainly no evidence the rant did anyone in or out of baseball any good.

No he wasn't. That can be your opinion but it is just that. I know some ethics too. A thoughtful consideration goes beyond the rule book, as many careful, non-jingoistic posts on this site have already done.

And I know people who live out of town, yes, in California too, and in New York, pretty big baseball town, who think Hawk had a point. Not all are Sox fans. Hell, I know die-hard Cub fans who thought that ejection was bull. In fact, those who know the game best objected to it most.

Hawk was not disciplined, either. He was sternly spoken to by a commissioner who has zero contractual or rule book power over him or his employment status. Hawk listened anyway, and was publicy funny, rueful and self-deprecating in the wake of that, without actually saying he'd been wrong about the call. A nuanced response. Nuanced.

Finally, it did a lot of people good. It was entertaining, it reflected the reaction of nearly every person watching as it happened live, it got people talking. All part of Hawk's job. And quite ethical.