PDA

View Full Version : John Lackey ejection



Red in Chicago
05-17-2009, 01:36 PM
Did the umpire handle this situation correctly by ejecting Lackey after two pitches?

Yes
No

LvJ
05-17-2009, 01:52 PM
Absolutely not.

Redhook
05-17-2009, 02:16 PM
The umpire is the one who should've been ejected. He should be suspended for being so ignorant.

RedFanAlways1966
05-17-2009, 02:20 PM
Yes.

(a) Look at the history between these two teams.
(b) Look at the lack of a follow-through by Lackey after both pitches.

Got what he deserved. I applaud the umpire for having the guts to eject a player whose intention was to hit (and possibly injure) an opposing player. There is no rule that states a warning has to be given (as some might believe b/c umps normally do this).

jojo
05-17-2009, 02:22 PM
Whatever Lackey's intentions, his ejection probably prevented a bloodbath.

Crosley68
05-17-2009, 02:24 PM
Without question the right call.

RedsManRick
05-17-2009, 02:50 PM
If Lackey was aiming for his butt instead of his chin, I doubt he would have been tossed. It's one thing to hit a guy on purpose; it's quite another if it looks like you're head hunting...

CrackerJack
05-17-2009, 03:00 PM
Should've given a warning - that was the ump's only fault. Ejecting him for that silliness, I see no problem with, ecspecially considering the history there.

CTA513
05-17-2009, 03:31 PM
If he would have hit with the 1st pitch he probably wouldn't have been ejected.

remdog
05-17-2009, 03:48 PM
Whatever Lackey's intentions, his ejection probably prevented a bloodbath.

Good example of hyperbole.

As pointed out in the LA Times: "There has been bad blood between the Angels and Rangers, but it is ancient, by baseball standards.

The clubs brawled in 2005 and several times in 2006, though the instigator of those 2006 skirmishes, Vicente Padilla, was on the mound Saturday, giving up three runs and 10 hits in eight innings to gain the win."

Davidson, he of well known bad rulings in the WBC tourney, should have awarded first base to Kinzler and then issued a warning. That would have stopped it right there of face the concequenses.

We've seen some very poor umpiring this year and that was a good example of the absurdity of some of it.

Rem

jojo
05-17-2009, 04:29 PM
Good example of hyperbole.

If Lackey isn't ran, it's guaranteed that an angel gets plunked and benches probably clear at some point.

It doesn't matter if it's Boston-Rays or two teams playing the first series against one another in their club's histories.

It's two teams fighting for their division. It's a pitch behind a guy's head followed by one that plunks him-this on the first two pitches after the Angels got lit up the night before in part by the guy who just got plunked.

It doesn't matter if Lackey tried to do it or not (my guess is that he didn't). The two pitches were textbook "message" pitches in appearance. Given that context, it would've been more controversial if Lackey would've stayed in the game and the likely resulting scenario was allowed to unfold.

GAC
05-17-2009, 04:59 PM
Have no problem with what the ump did. What I found amazing was that Lackey was surprised he got tossed. For cryin' out loud guy! You start the game and throw a total of two pitches. Your first pitch sailed behind Kinsler's head. And the next one hits him in the ribs. You came out an showed your intent from the beginning was to nail him.

George Anderson
05-17-2009, 05:28 PM
No brainer.

The ump got it right.

Joseph
05-17-2009, 06:34 PM
Absolutely the correct thing to do.