- 09:11 AM
- 11/21/24
Dayummmmm, don't kow whether to go watch a Miller film or "The Man who Skied Down Everest" after that
posted by elovrich at 04:54 AM on November 18, 2006
Let's break the argument down into pieces. 1) You have to win your conference to play in the National Championsip (NC) game. Why? In other sports wild-cards/lesser seeds get the chance to win a championship. Besides, the system in place, the BCS rules, say 1 plays 2. You may not like it, I may not like it, but thems the rules we have right now. 2) The loser of The Game, is likely to fall lower than #2. Let's break this down into 2 scenarios. 2a) UM wins (these both assume close games, hey, it's my argument) Who deserves the shot at the winner? ND? But that brings us back to a rematch (see number 1). Besides, is a rematch of an early season butt-wiping more compelling than a late-season close game? USC? They are the #3 as of right now, but squeaked by lesser opponents twice already, and are only this high in the rankings because several one-loss teams became two-loss teams this past week. Their loss was to the powerhouse of Oregon State, this is less damning than a loss to Michugan? They deserve a shot more than Ohio State? Florida? They lost to Auburn, who has two losses including a waxing by Georgia. Rutgers? A case can be made for them, but a UM-Rutgers matchup is more compelling than UM-Ohio State? 2b) Ohio State wins ND? After the loss to Michigan they deserve a shot more than the Wolverines? USC/Florida/Rutgers? See above..... Barring a blowout, can you really say that a rematch is not the most logical matchup? The BCS is what it is, and it is all that we have right now. BTW, If you think a 4-team playoff would be any better, with 1 playing 4 and 2 playing 3, provided all teams other than UM/Ohio State win-out, and the loser falling to 4 in the polls, guess what you get in round 1? UM vs Ohio State..... ((My apppologies to Mitch Albom for so blatently stealing his material, but I doubted that a linked article would get the reading that the post got))
posted by elovrich at 07:44 PM on November 15, 2006
All of you thinking OSU and UT in the championship game are assuming an undefeated OSU, right? What would you do in the case Michigan beats them in a classic Big Ten slobber-knocker by, say, a score of 14-13? Would you put a one-loss SEC team or USC or UT ahead of a one-loss OSU? Or would Michigan not rate the #1 spot going undefeated? I, personally, am hoping for just this scenario and an all-Big10 BSC finale.
posted by elovrich at 06:53 PM on November 11, 2006
After listening to Tim Brando tonight on SNR (hey, he is a talking head, but working at an AM station, it goes with the job) it seems either he is a SpoFite or someone else is thinking along the same lines I am. The topic of a Michigan-OhioState national title game was on the agenda. WV, Louisville, and Rutgers all play each other still, and can very easily beat one other, Fl has FSU, and that can always go either way. So the question still remains, if UM-OSU is a 3-point game, especially of UM wins, who would YOU send to the title game?
posted by elovrich at 10:27 PM on October 30, 2006
Might it be possible that we see UM and OSU play twice this year? The regular season finale, and if they both enter that game undefeated and it it s cole game again in January?
posted by elovrich at 07:40 AM on October 29, 2006
*gulp* I am a Tigers' fan. And an umpire. That being said, ot doesn't WHAT KR had on his hand, if the umpires saw it, he sjould have been ejected. The rules prohibit any foreign substance on a pitcher's hand other than rosin from a bav provided for the purpose of drying the hand). But, if the Card's hitters or LaRussa didn't say anything till afgter the first, and it was gone by the second what could they do? Go Tigers, it looks to be shaping up as a great series.
posted by elovrich at 11:27 PM on October 22, 2006
A great comeback, even if it was against a weak team, and has been said, the DID go down 38-3 to NW to set it up. I hope John L. manages to drop at least two of the last four, I seem to recall a certain coach who is available thagt did fairly well out on the west coast who just might be able to be persuaded to join his long time friend as a Spartan head coach. (Hint: they share a hometown and both graduated from Northern Michigan University)
posted by elovrich at 04:29 PM on October 22, 2006
As important as they are on the field, would you still take one earlier than the 9th round in your fantasy draft?
posted by elovrich at 10:56 AM on September 07, 2006
What is it about the NFC North? I know we live in the frozen north, and summer is but a glimmer of time each year, but first "Love Boat" and now this, perhaps the "Norris" Division should be changed to the "NoRis(que)" Division.
posted by elovrich at 10:51 AM on September 07, 2006
good catch MJK, don't know were my head was.
posted by elovrich at 01:10 AM on September 06, 2006
Being the cynic that I am, and to refute DJE's assertion that all of the teams fit into his mold... Green Bay, has net exactly had a a large amount of success in recent years. It IS interesting to note that they were 22d last year in tickets sold online, and jumped to 3rd this year, on the tails of a lousy season, a lousy pre-season, and no word that this will in fact be Favre's last year. In their case, knowing how hard it is to get tickets at ANY price when they are doing well, I would say that the jump in online value is due to a jump in online supply, which would indicate that they are actually a poorer draw for those that have had season tickets forever. The season ticket holders are dumping them, and those that have never had any opportunity to attend a game at Lambeau are paying whatever it takes to get the elusive ducat, perhaps the one true example of traditoin and fan loyalty.
posted by elovrich at 10:47 AM on September 05, 2006
Thank you MJK. Lane Frost, Ty Murray, Dan Mahan, they all kept logs in the various bulls that they rose, or saw ridden. Did the bull break out and turn left or right, is it a bucker or a spinner. Bulls have tendencies, and if you know what is more likely coming, you have an edge.
posted by elovrich at 10:30 AM on September 05, 2006
Let's not jump to conclucions about how LA is treating her athletes. As has been said, the facts in the available threads are pretty thin. What can be said is that it appears that the state did all it can to provide an easy, pain-free process while trying to protect from predatory, active seeking out of top athletes from disaster areas. I say 'trying' because, if we read the article carefully, it does not say that the athletes in question 'played' for Balsrop, but rather that they were 'recruited by Balsrop.' Recruited, as in Coach: "If you come play for us son, we will make sure your family has a nice house to live in rather than a flea-bag motel or a FEMA campsite." I am not saying that is what happened, but if it is, or any other inducement was offered (which is what recruiting entails) then I say that Balsrop was trying to benefit from the disaster, and THAT IMO is wrong.
posted by elovrich at 09:18 AM on August 30, 2006
llb. The boy just does not know about Animal House, nor Foghorn Leghorn.
posted by elovrich at 09:09 AM on August 30, 2006
I guess the question, to me, comes down to; do female athletes get an extra year of eligility only if the term of the pregnancy conflicts with the season for for their particualr sport? If that is the case, and if there is no post-natal accomodation, then the suit has no merit as entered (that is as a violation of Title IX due to being discriminatory on the basis of sex) since non-pregnant, even post-natal females, are treated the same as the male athletes are. FMLA is not applicable since there are no employees involved. And it may not be germane to the current discussion, but would you only make the additional year available to married players? Or, limit the number of times the additional year can be applied to a given player? It may be cynical, but I can see some coach somewhere with a booster offering to 'arrange' for a player to be able to get an extra year or two of eligibility.
posted by elovrich at 12:33 AM on August 30, 2006
Actually, terrapin, I liked the clean lines of the ESPN clock, since when do we need to long bar across the top with all of the extra space? The only thing that I would think about changing, is alternating the side that the score is on, i.e. when Minn is going from left to right on your radio then the Minn score in on the right, but then, that may get confusing also since it would not be the same throughout the game.
posted by elovrich at 10:21 AM on August 15, 2006
The IBB is usually quite obvious (catcher leaving the crouch and stepping away from the plate to catch it). If I was the umpire and I saw the team pulling this maneuver, I'd pay VERY close attention and call the "catcher's balk" (about halfway down the Q&A) if it occurred. I'm sure someone would complain, but hey, it's "part of the game". Grum, In Little League, not sure about PONY rules, an IBB is even MORE obvious. The coach tells the umpire, "Put him on. We aren't pitching to him."
posted by elovrich at 03:32 PM on August 11, 2006
Reading other articles on this incident, here are some new/clarified facts. This was a PONY 9-10 y.o. league championship game. Not LL, not an all-star team. This league has a 4-run per inning limit (except for this championship game, which then raises the question of why change the rules unless winning is important). The coach that walked the power hitter coached Romney in basketball 2 years prior to this incident. One would assume that he knew about the cancer issue, even if he swears he was unaware of it. The power hitter had already hit a 3-run HR and a triple earlier in the game. Romney wears a batting helmet while playing centerfield (this would certainly raise the question of why, meaning it is more likely that coach Farr knew what the situation was). Even with these additional facts, I would agree with the decision to walk the batter. BUT, since the situation is now first and third, why not walk Romney also? Problem solved.
posted by elovrich at 11:10 AM on August 11, 2006
First things first.... Are we to assume that young Mr Romney is not a capable baseball player? That he is on this team playing for a chance to advance to the LL World Series simply to make him feel special because he is a cancer survivor? These teams are all-star squads made up of the best players that a local league has to offer. If young Mr. Romney IS on the team just as a gesture to make him feel special, then shame on his coach, his parents and anyone else involved in that decision. I say this not to be cruel, but just the opposite. It would not take a genius to see that exactly something like this would have happened. By placing him on the team if he was not able to perform at an adequate level leaves him in just this position, AND deprives another child the opportunity to play. Now, lets look at what young Mr Romney's coach failed to do....pinch hit for the young man. LL has a mandatory play rule, where every player must play 3 defensive outs in the field and bat one time, starters are permitted to reenter. If Romney had not hit yet, and the other team pitches to the power hitter, and the game is won at that point, they would still lose via forfeit for not having gotten all the players the required at bat (Romney). If Romney had already batted, then it is simple, you bring the starter back in rather than leave Romney at the plate, unless of course he is not really all that poor a hitter, in which case why are we even having this discussion?
posted by elovrich at 10:16 AM on August 11, 2006
The taser was ineffective, not because Clarrett is some kind of superman, but because the vest kept the leads from contacting his skin, he never got the shock... I would think that the reason for the 5 mil bail is because he was already pending trial for an armed robbery charge and this latest incident occured just outside of the residence of one of the witnesses set to testify in that trial.... Hell, if i were the judge, there would have been no bail allowed....
posted by elovrich at 01:02 AM on August 11, 2006
The players that we are talking about are in the minority. I do not see how it is that they are having their pockets picked by the school if they are asked to repay benefits that they received for failure to fulfill an obligation, that of competing for X number of years. Of course I am not so cold-hearted that I do not also support a quid pro quo. if a player is injured and unable to fulfill his/her obligation to play, but remains academically sound enough to remain in school, his/her scholarship stays in place. As for the money working its way to the general education fund for the state under my proposal, no it would not, but neither would any of the money to run the athletic department come from that fund. And with the recovery of scholarships the need for alumni contributions, and student activity fees, and the myriad of none direct revenues that contributed to UofM's 17 million dollar athletic department profit after expenses for 2005 would not be needed. For the few athletes that would be affected by having to repay scholarships, if you were their advisor (they are not permitted agents) would you recommend that they take the certainty of a guranteed scholarship in the case of injury balanced againt the possible need to repay the scholarship if they enter the draft early? Do you think the fees to be repaid wouldn't be negotiated into their first contract? This would de facto make the drafting team the one footing the bill, and wouldn't this be just compensation for the school acting as a 'minor league'? Anything that gets alumni money out of the equation cannot be a bad thing. Anything that keeps general fees for ALL students down, cannot be a bad thing. Anything that helps to keep non-revenue producing sports viable and thereby allowing 'student-athletes' to compete with no ulterior motive of being a professional eventually, cannot be a bad thing. Anything that provides a borderline 7th round pick underclassman an incentive to stay in school and get the degree as a back up, cannot be a bad thing.
posted by elovrich at 01:46 PM on August 09, 2006
Move ARod away from the NY area and its media and does anyone doubt that his 'hate factor' would go down?
posted by elovrich at 12:24 PM on August 09, 2006
bperk, The player got something in return as well, exposure, training, experience. When was the last time that a player signed a pro contract after two years of JUCO ball, or playing for Northeast Central Southwest Podunk State A&M? Do you really think that counting on, and encouraging boosters and alumni to fund MORE of your athletic program is a good idea? Besides, as a tax payer in Michigan, I would much rather see Joe College the touchdown machine from Houton, Texas, who signed with the Wolverines after having dreamed his entire childhood of playing for the 'Horns pay for his education, having benefited from the exposure he got playing for the Maize and Blue and signing after two years of doing 'C' level course work in 3 years rather than have my daughter's highschool have to give up their band program because the state only has so many dollars to go around for education at all levels. Justgary, I do not know the figures, but of the top 250 HS propects in any given year in FB and Mens' BB, how many sign a contract before their eligibility is used up, or top 50 for that matter? If anyone can get those numbers they would prove interesting, but I would bet that it is not naive to expect the vast majority of your recruits to be around for 4 years.
posted by elovrich at 12:21 PM on August 09, 2006
grum, I meant in the minds of some fans, since an SB doesn't guarantee a run, and an HR guarantees at least 1, is it not as 'glamorous'. I know there are no style points, and with a large number of HR the SB loses even more value.
posted by elovrich at 12:04 PM on August 09, 2006
bperk; I agree that the schools make quite a bit of money on athletes in two programs, football and basketball. But, they also made the investment with the expectation of having that investment bear fruit for 4 years of play. The biggest reason to have the athlete pay back the scholarship is to fund the proposal in the second part of my post. Another is just good old-fashioned business sense. Would it truly be a hardship for an athlete, leaving early for the pros (we will assume it is because they are likely to go high in the draft and make commensurate amounts of money) to repay the scholarship? I am not familiar with how a letter of intent reads, but if they were worded to reflect that the player is expected to play for the school for X years, and their remuneration was X in financial aid, and the amount was to be repaid if the athlete left under circumstances other than; graduation, transfer while in good academic standing, or other circumstamces beyond the athlete's control, in other words make it a six year contract between player and school. Perhaps the athlete will be less likely to jump ship and will stay and finish his/her degree. A side benefit may be the understanding that a contract is something that needs to be honored on both sides, and not something for the player to renegotiate after one or two seasons of performing above expectations. This then leads to the need for guaranteed contracts in the NFL but that is another thread....
posted by elovrich at 09:14 AM on August 09, 2006
League ID: 99469 League URL: http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/99469 Password: NoCostanzaForMe I know it seems early for this, but as it was the only time I could get for a live draft the last weekend before the season started was 8:45 AM Central US time. Twenty teams, so it is a deep league, unless we want to split it into 2 leagues.... 8 make the playoffs weeks 15-17 Fractional points...
posted by elovrich at 03:38 AM on August 09, 2006
One thing that I have always espoused when the discussion of players who leave early to go to the pros is that they REPAY all scholarship monies to the school involved, either to the athletic scholarship fund, or even better to the general scholarship fund. Now, as for what to do to increase the drive of the schools to ensure that its athletes complete their education? Give the school a 'pool' of scholarship dollars for each sport, seperate and non-combineable, based on the number of scholarships currently allowed under NCAA regs and the average student tuition and room and board for the institution. When a full scholarship is tendered to an incomong freshman, that pool is dinged for 6 years worth of dollars. When the pot is dry, no more scholarships. The pool is replenished if the athlete leaves school for the pros, by the athlete repaying the scholarship monies used and the unspent portion being put back in the pool (see above); if an athlete ON GOOD ACADEMIC STANDING transfers to another school, the remaing unspent monies are credited back to the pool; the athlete completes an undergraduate degree program, any unspent monies are credited back to the pool. Why 6 years? That allows for one redshirt year, and one year to wrap up coursework after expiration of eligibility. I do not have a problem with this, as most students do not finish degrees in 4 years anymore anyway. The real incentive to the school, aside from not running out of scholarship money from unfullfilled degrees is that they can actually INCREASE the number of full rides available if they regularly graduate their athletes on time (4 or 5 years) due to the excess monoes from the last year(s) being credited back to the pool. The reason for keeping each sport seperate is self-evident, you dont want the academic success or failure of one sport to impact the scholarships of any other sport.
posted by elovrich at 03:16 AM on August 09, 2006
I am glad that others are making the arguments about the fallacy of the HBP ratio. If you look at the figures, the decades of the '30s and 40's (those when Auker was pitching and talking about Ps owning the plate) are when the ratio showed the LOWEST ratio for HBP to IP. I would argue that that means that hitters KNEW they didn't belong on top of the plate, DIDN'T dig in and ALWAYS made an attempt to avoid getting plunked. Was it better baseball? Guess that depends in what you like about the game. I would hypothosize that one of the reasons Ruth has stood for as long as he has a hitter non-pariel is that not only did he hit 60 HR, but did it in an era when NO ONE was hitting HRs. Personally, the HR has lost its luster simply because it has become so commonplace. Does a day go by without at least 4 or 5? Today's SB is the HR of the early 20th century, as far as scarcity. Unfortunately, SB does not always equal a run on the board, so it is not as "glamorous". To me, a 1-0 game, the one run having been manufactured, is a classic game. To others, the best game is a 13-11 HR fest. I am not in a position to judge who is right, but I think we all would agree the the managers in the latter are wrong, either for having left starting Ps in way to long, or not having a corps of relivers who could stop the hemmoraging.
posted by elovrich at 02:46 AM on August 09, 2006
I do not know much more about Goodel than the article mentions. That being said, I would agree with his getting the nod fot the same reasons mentioned. The labor agreement iis in place through 2008, the TV contracts are good thrhough 2011. The two biggest things currentle on the commisioner's plate are putting a team(s) into the LA area and maximizing the money making for NFL Network. Both of these are middle-of-the-stream, long term projects that are better handled by someone that has been involved with then as opposed to bringing a new face and philosophy. As a fan who is neither in LA nor in a market with access to NFL Network, I would have loved to see someone brought in who would address the officiating situation, but as this does not seem to be anything that is of concern to the owners (or at least to those with representation on the competition committee) then getting such a person voted into the office would have been slight regardless. CC, I do not think it is being afraid of a new mindset, but rather a case of wanting to see the current course to fruition. And realistically, is it fair to accuse either Goodel or Tagliabue of having been in the owners' pocket? That is an accusation that mat be valid in the MLB, but I do not see in in the NFL.
posted by elovrich at 02:23 AM on August 09, 2006
Not to sound completely ill-informed; but, what does the NFL's competition committee ~do~? It is not the rules committee, exactly, but then it is. They make decisions that affect the day-to-day operations and game day decisions, but what does that really mean? Aside from telling Chad Johnson not to dance and Reggie Bush to choose a number other than 5 what do they do? Besides, Millen is one of 8 members, heck I wish the Lions had 7 other voices of reason to drown him out....
posted by elovrich at 07:36 PM on August 04, 2006
Re: Points for completions and receptions Do you want this in addition to points for passing and receiving yards, thereby double dipping the passing category, or in place of these....thereby making a 2 yd dump-off to the check-down back coming out of the backfield worth the same as a frozen rope threaded between 2 defenders 20 yards downfield? *smiles* Really I have no objections either way, its YOUR league folks, tell me how you want it.....
posted by elovrich at 09:47 AM on August 04, 2006
The NFL Network ran ads asking fans to pressure companies like Time Warner to carry the NFL Network. This has always made me laugh, like the old commercials for color tv that used to run...on television....usually a b&w model, or one with poor color.... why on earth would anyone already watching the NFL network give 2 hoots about getting their local cable outlet to carry the programming?
posted by elovrich at 09:42 AM on August 04, 2006
*tongue firmly implanted in cheek* I use this opportunity to call for the complete cessation of ALL motorsports activity, of ANY kind. This useless waste of life, cutting down one so full of promise at such a tender age, MUST come to a stop. What will be next, hunters using chainsaws to drop trees onto deer? Signed, A PETA friend
posted by elovrich at 09:13 AM on August 04, 2006
Down near the bottom of the article, it talks about letting camera operators run onto the field in a test this preseason for close-ups. With the advent of the skycam and all of the high-powered lenses available, is this really necessary? I know they said there would be restrictions in place to avoid interfering with play, but no restriction can cover ALL possibilities. Bad idea, guys, baaaaad idea.
posted by elovrich at 09:08 AM on August 04, 2006
Sorry I have been away for so long folks. If we want to discuss changing the scoring for the yahoo league, lets do it now. Although, it will take a super majority to make a change (2/3). What did you have in mind?
posted by elovrich at 06:56 PM on August 03, 2006
yesssss, YYM, it would have, but hell, I was trying to be cute........
posted by elovrich at 08:08 PM on June 22, 2006
League ID: 99469 League URL: http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/99469 Password: NoCostanzaForMe I know it seems early for this, but as it was the only time I could get for a live draft the last weekend before the season started was 8:45 AM Central US time. Twenty teams, so it is a deep league, unless we want to split it into 2 leagues.... 8 make the playoffs weeks 15-17 Fractional points...
posted by elovrich at 07:31 PM on June 21, 2006
Fron the article: “There were no problems at all with the English fans, they did not cause any trouble. We were acting on intelligence information.” ... A number of English fans were seen throwing chairs. Hrrrrm......so much for German Intelligence.. It is too bad that ANY fan ANYWHERE has to act in this fashion. But then again, isn't fan just short for fanatic? Perhaps we should all just be called athletic supporters.....oh, wait...that's already taken.
posted by elovrich at 10:10 AM on June 21, 2006
(and now for the barnacles on the hull to be heard from) Didn't see any of the games, didn't see any of the officiating. That said, take this as just observation from an official.... If the ref's dont 'T' someone up there may be several reasons..... The league has told them NOT to do so unless there is specific action (i.e. 'F-bombs', personal contact); They know that they made a bad call, and will take the justified criticism; They know that if they suddenly start calling all of these 'T's that you seem to want, then a whole other can of worms gets opened. That being, how long will it take for the players/coaches/managers/fans to start saying the referrees are thin-skinned, or have 'rabbit-ears' and that they are now TRULY impacting the outcome of the game. Will you be satisfied that the game was decided on the free throw line because a player had a complaint? do you want to see the 8th, 9th, 10th player getting more than 20 minutes because the starter got 2 for being emotional? I am not saying that the 'T' is not a viable tool, but, be careful what you wish for......
posted by elovrich at 10:04 AM on June 21, 2006
B11 states that it is supposed to evoke a birds nest. To me it just looks like it is held together by duct tape... B12: well if it were Roswell NM, I would say go for it, is that a UFO or the roof?!?
posted by elovrich at 11:31 PM on June 19, 2006
I know it's just radio, but XM is great. Every game with no black outs. (Not that I'd care if they wouldn't let me listen to the Marlins.) Actually, it is because of radio that these strange "local market" rules evolved. Taking the Iowa example from the story. WCCO, WGN, and whatever the flagship AM stations for the other teams were back in the first half of the last century, had a rather long reach, it was quite possible to get any or all of the radio broadcasts in, say, Waterloo. Since radio was the only live game in town at the time, the teams fought to have their markets as wide as possible, and the thought was, that when you DID go to a game, you would go to the team that you listened to on the radio... Originally, it was not to protect ticket sales, but to generate them; get the distant farmers hooked on your team and they will come to you. I do not know when broadcasting went from ticket generating to ticket gobbling, but I would venture it coincides with football being broadcast regularly on television.
posted by elovrich at 11:22 PM on June 19, 2006
I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws. I am not sure, but if he didn't have a license as was rumored, or had been riding less than two years with a license, how did he NOT intend to break a law? Did he just think that anyojne was allowed to ride a motorcycle? This stinks of being a PR apology.
posted by elovrich at 08:56 PM on June 15, 2006
just for the record; what is the largest number of posts to one thread?
posted by elovrich at 01:26 PM on June 14, 2006
actually; the "large values of 2" was correct, depending on when you round i.e. 2.4+2.4=4.8 rounded gives, 2+2=5 conversely 1.7+1.7=3.4 give 2+2=3
posted by elovrich at 01:24 PM on June 14, 2006
As was said earlier in this thread, the reporters are not being prevented from covering the Royal's, they can write all the stories that they desire. I would think, and if anyone knows otherwise please chime in, that what they have lost is pressbox seats, locker room access, and press conference access. Of course, if the ownership isn't saying anything about the sorry state of affairs that the Royal's seem to be in, are they (the reporters) really missing out on anything by NOT being at the conferences?
posted by elovrich at 10:13 PM on June 10, 2006
It is part perception and part truth actually... At the lowest levels, (Rookie ball and short-A) which an umpire typically works their first year or two, it is quite common for an umpire to have 20+ incident reports to file, and remember, this is in a shortened season. Part of this is attributable to the fact the they have quick trigger fingers, part is that they are more sensitive to the criticism and bench-jokeying that they hear (still having rabbit-ears at this level is not uncommon), and part is due to the fact that the players, managers and coaches are also either in their first years, or trying to make a name for themselves. As an umpire (and the players) move up the ladder, each becomes more confident in the umpire's abilities and there are fewer ejections, again partly due to better behavior on both sides, and thicker skin from having been in the crucible. By the time an umpire reaches AAA, and especially those who are just waiting for a spot to open up in the Show, the umpires have their reputations established; wide zone or not, easy to approach with a legitimate beef or not, quick on the trigger or not, and the players and managers can guage their reactions accordingly. As has been said many times, the best umpire is the one that you have to check the boxscore the next day to see who was working the game. Besides, no one *wants* to have to do all that paperwork....
posted by elovrich at 09:39 PM on June 09, 2006
Here I am tron7.... Not having seen the (non-existent) footage of what really happened, we have only the reports to go on. If Randazzo went up the line, he was in the wrong. God knows that umpires have enough to deal with and do notneed to go looking for trouble. That said, it *can* be hard to just let it go sometimes. If someone has been sniping at you all day long, and you realize it is the last chance to set him straight, you might just be tempted to put your self where you do not belong. Think "I have been good about ignoring the trolls, but enough is enough." Even those of us here at SpoFi go where angels fear to tread from time to time. This in no way justifies anything that Randazzo may have done, he has been around long enough to know better (6 and a half years in the show). I would think that he will get spoken to, not only by Cowboy Joe, but by the Commisioner's office as well. No, it will not likely be made public, whatever the consequences are (and with that I *do* agree). But, I would not look for him to work a second Mid-summer classic this year....
posted by elovrich at 03:55 PM on June 08, 2006
Upon further review...... Here are the relevant rules citations that SHOULD have been referenced by the officiating crew Rule 2 Definition of Terms: A BALL is a pitch which does not enter the strike zone in flight and is not struck at by the batter. Rule 2.00 (Ball) Comment: If the pitch touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone it is a “ball.” If such a pitch touches the batter, he shall be awarded first base. If the batter swings at such a pitch after two strikes, the ball cannot be caught, for the purposes of Rule 6.05(c) and 6.09(b). If the batter hits such a pitch, the ensuing action shall be the same as if he hit the ball in flight. Combine above with: IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder. So, third stike, in this case, of a pitch that was not caught, by rule it COULD NOT have been caught. Time should not have been called at the time that the ball hit the bird, the only thing that happened is the pitch was no longer "in flight".
posted by elovrich at 02:03 AM on June 08, 2006
Wonderful....looking at the in-depth numbers, even if the USA makes it out of the Group Stage (only a 48+% chance) they will most likely meet Brazil in the secong round, then Spain in the quarters, then Germany in the semi's, not sure how they also most likely meet Germany in the finals as well, but that is what the numbers say....
posted by elovrich at 10:09 PM on June 07, 2006
The intersting part for me (well, ok, the umpire part of me) is that the boys in blue may have gotten the ruling wrong. In school the subject of animals on the field came up, and the consensus of the instructors was that they were part of the field. Now, to elaborate on this, the question at the time was about a land-bound animal either in front of or behind an infielder other than the pitcher. The ruling was that it would be the same as if the ball hit an umpire, if in front of the infielder, base hit, all runners return unless forced. If behind the infielder, live ball. Since this was NOT a batted ball, but a pitched ball, I would think that it should have been the same as a ball that strikes the ground before it reaches the plate, that is, it is a live ball, but cannot be a called strike regardless of whether it crosed the strike zone or not. In other words, if the batter doesn't swing, it's a ball, but since he swung, dropped strike three, play continues... I will see what I can find out from contacts and questions to see if this will become the new ruling.....
posted by elovrich at 09:59 PM on June 07, 2006
Eric was a good friend and a mentor as I was trying to break into organized ball. He will be sorely missed. RIP *
posted by elovrich at 02:52 AM on June 06, 2006
No, World Cup soccer NEVER engenders any feelings of nationalism at all. Hell, even the QUALIFIERS can lead to rioting that leads to a 5-day war that leaves 3,000 dead (El Salvador, 1969). Of course, it could also help to end a civil war this time around (Ivory Coast). I know the FA has initiatives to help dispel the stereotype of the English soccer hooligan. But, if it is an undeserved stereotype, then why to they need to prevent registered hooligans from leaving the country during and leading up to matches? (ans who the hell is registering these hooligans anyway?) Anyway, I hope that Germany 2006 goes off without a hitch, racially motivated or otherwise.
posted by elovrich at 12:59 AM on June 02, 2006
Jcubs007 spoke from the lion's den on this issue. And perhaps it is just the wording of the rule that needs to be tweaked. Rather than stating that ANY coach of ANY team that wins by 50+ points will be suspended the next game, why not make it: "The coach of any team that wins a game by 50+ points will be subject to having his game films reviewed for the possibility of actions that are commonly referred to as 'running up the score'. These actions would include, but are not limited to, failure to play available reserves for X % of plays that the score so indicates; running of so called'trick' or 'gimmick' plays; taking timeouts for any reason other than an inury, unless X percent of the players on the field are reserves." You get the idea, it goes back to, "I can't define it, but I know it when i see it." If the point is to stop the unsportsmalike conduct of a few bad apples, this may be the way to go. If the point is to shield and coddle our nearly adult athletes, treating them as preteens, keeping them from having to deal with disappointment and failure of any kind, until the day they are out on their own, then they have the right formula already and do not need to change a thing.
posted by elovrich at 08:45 PM on May 26, 2006
Exactly my point Smithee; We still hear that OJ was found innocent. He was found "not guilty". Grum: I do not mean to say that no one is innocent if they go to trial, heaven knows that innocent men sit in our jails and prisons, hell just ask them. *smiles* The point I was trying to make, and obviously failed at, is that just because OJ got off, or that Barry hasn't tested positive for whatever the hell MLB is testing for, does NOT mean that they are INNOCENT. They may very well be, but the facts, as I and many others see them, tell a different story.
posted by elovrich at 08:30 PM on May 25, 2006
God I hope he does well, having him on my roster in the SpoFi fantasy league and slipping fast after a decent first month.
posted by elovrich at 07:53 PM on May 25, 2006
Its a ways up the page, and TOTALLY off topic, but this whole thread has been all over the place so here goes..... OJ was not found innocent. He was found "not guilty". There is a HUGE difference. Innocent means you did nothing wrong, "not guilty" means wer couldn't prove it.
posted by elovrich at 07:51 PM on May 25, 2006
Many thought that Miami had a good chance to win the first game coming off along rest, giving the Deisel a chance to catch his breath. I wouldn't look for the trend to continue.
posted by elovrich at 07:35 PM on May 25, 2006
Bo Schembechler Dies on Eve of Michigan/Ohio State Game
to that I say OSU beat UM last weekend so why is the ND lose to UM a bigger factor than UM's lose to OSU. Because ND lost AT HOME, to a (then) lower ranked team and by a large margin. UM lost, on the road, to the #1 ranked team, by a field goal. Speaking of the 3-point difference in that game, correct me if I am wrong, but in the world of handicapping football, isn't the home field still worth just that much? Florida, USC, perhaps, check back after the play out their games. ND? Not a chance. And as for who would watch a rematch, a map of just such a poll showed that aside from Cali, Fla, Louisiana, and the Jersey area, most states favored a UM/OSU rematch