|
05-17-2009, 12:36 PM
|
#1 |
|
Oy Vey!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,260
|
John Lackey ejection
Did the umpire handle this situation correctly by ejecting Lackey after two pitches?
Yes No Last edited by Red in Chicago; 05-17-2009 at 02:02 PM. |
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 12:52 PM
|
#2 |
|
Time is the Revelator.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 7,276
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
Absolutely not.
__________________
Hide your power alleys; Hide your wife |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 01:16 PM
|
#3 |
|
Miami Redhawks
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cincy
Posts: 2,247
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
The umpire is the one who should've been ejected. He should be suspended for being so ignorant.
__________________
"....the two players I liked watching the most were Barry Larkin and Eric Davis. I was suitably entertained by their effortless skill that I didn't need them crashing into walls like a squirrel on a coke binge." - dsmith421 www.kylevoska.com - Golfer? Check out my blog for golf tips. |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 01:20 PM
|
#4 |
|
For a Level Playing Field
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oakwood, OH
Posts: 11,302
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
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).
__________________
Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting. |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 01:22 PM
|
#5 |
|
Five Tool Fool
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 16,695
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
Whatever Lackey's intentions, his ejection probably prevented a bloodbath.
__________________
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 01:24 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 945
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
Without question the right call.
__________________
Let's play two!!! |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 01:50 PM
|
#7 |
|
Stat Wanker Hodiernus
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 14,987
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
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...
__________________
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance. |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 02:00 PM
|
#8 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 4,931
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
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.
|
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 02:31 PM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,703
|
Re: John Lackey ejection
If he would have hit with the 1st pitch he probably wouldn't have been ejected.
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 02:48 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 7,975
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 03:29 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Five Tool Fool
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 16,695
|
Re: Poll: John Lackey ejection
Quote:
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.
__________________
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner |
|
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 03:59 PM
|
#12 |
|
What Me Worry?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bellefontaine, Ohio
Posts: 26,430
|
Re: John Lackey ejection
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.
__________________
"panic" only comes from having real expectations |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 04:28 PM
|
#13 |
|
Beer is good!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,184
|
Re: John Lackey ejection
No brainer.
The ump got it right.
__________________
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard |
|
|
|
|
05-17-2009, 05:34 PM
|
#14 |
|
Tired of talk. Win!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,144
|
Re: John Lackey ejection
Absolutely the correct thing to do.
__________________
Championships for MY teams in my lifetime: Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90 Chicago Blackhawks - 10 University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12 Cincinnati Bengals - None Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98 |
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Linear Mode
