PDA

View Full Version : Are the unwritten rules of baseball open to interpretation?



jojo
05-31-2012, 02:30 PM
I think Hawk is wrong on this one....

http://www.raysindex.com/2012/05/hawk-harrelson-lost-his-mind-after-a-white-sox-pitcher-was-ejected-video.html

Here's a link to a story that gives the needed context:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/jason_turbow/05/31/rays.hawk.sox/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

dougdirt
05-31-2012, 02:37 PM
Of course they are open to interpretation.... they are unwritten.

jojo
05-31-2012, 02:38 PM
Of course they are open to interpretation.... they are unwritten.

But Hawk is blowing a gasket as if there is only one interpretation.....

cumberlandreds
05-31-2012, 02:47 PM
If it had been the other way around Harrelson would have had a totally different reaction. He such a blatant homer its not even funny. I rarely watch White Sox broadcast because of him. He's just mind numbing. I never understood why people like him unless you are a die hard White Sox fan.

Spitball
05-31-2012, 03:02 PM
I watched the game and that video isn't the end of Hawk's rant. He went on and on. I agree with Harrelson but think his rant was boarderline libelous.

The whole thing started earlier in the series when Pierzynski went hard into second base and Zobrist felt it was harder than necessary. The Rays' pitcher Cobb first hits Beckham and then Pierzynski. There were no warnings issued at that time! The umpire should have issued warnings. There is no excuse for that!

When the White Sox pitcher threw behind Zobrist's legs (didn't even hit him), the umpire should have then issued the warnings rather than ejecting the pitcher.

I am not a White Sox or Harrleson fan, but I think the umpire was wrong here.

George Anderson
05-31-2012, 03:47 PM
. There were no warnings issued at that time! The umpire should have issued warnings. There is no excuse for that!

When the White Sox pitcher threw behind Zobrist's legs (didn't even hit him), the umpire should have then issued the warnings rather than ejecting the pitcher.

I am not a White Sox or Harrleson fan, but I think the umpire was wrong here.

Yea the umpire should have issued warnings IMO. Unless the pitcher gives you the impression he did it intentionally by a gesture or saying something then give him the benefit of doubt and just issue warnings.

The Voice of IH
05-31-2012, 05:52 PM
It is pretty clear that you are not allowed to throw at hitters. The ball went behind the hitter, a clear attempt to try to hit him.

Written Rule> Unwritten Rule.

jojo
05-31-2012, 06:06 PM
In my mind, the context is pretty important. AJP spiked Zobrist in what I'd call a dirty move first because he spiked Zobrist and second because there was no need for contact to begin with on that play. AJP got plunked the next day. As unwritten rules go, it's over as things are even steven even though the Rays were late to pull the trigger. But then Quintana throwsa ball about a mile and a half behind Zobrist while AJP doesn't even lean the slightest in that direction.

IMHO, only Hawk didn't think the events were linked.

Spitball
05-31-2012, 06:41 PM
In my mind, the context is pretty important. AJP spiked Zobrist in what I'd call a dirty move first because he spiked Zobrist and second because there was no need for contact to begin with on that play. AJP got plunked the next day. As unwritten rules go, it's over as things are even steven even though the Rays were late to pull the trigger. But then Quintana throwsa ball about a mile and a half behind Zobrist while AJP doesn't even lean the slightest in that direction..

It was a hard, late slide by Pierzynski, but to me, it appears the bag took the force. But, that isn't the main point.

The main problem was the lack of warning. Rays' pitcher, Alex Cobb, had already hit the White Sox second baseman. There should have been a warning at that point. That should have been the "things are even" point. "Eye for an eye" or "middle infielder for middle infielder" point. Whatever, the warning should have been issued. When Pierzynski gets hit, he still does not issue a warning. What? The umpire knew the situation and failed twice to issue a warning.


IMHO, only Hawk didn't think the events were linked.

He understood they were linked. He gave a "tutorial" for several more innings. The point, again, had to do with the lack of a warning before the ejection.