data.3news-bydate.train.rec.sport.baseball.104661 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Braves Update!!
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Lines: 48
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric Roush) writes:
>1) Since time immemorial, batters have complained about calls.
>So have pitchers and catchers.
However, batters didn't use to go for strolls after bad calls to the degree
they do now.
>Unless the league notified teams this year about not allowing
>complaints, Hirschbeck was acting against expectations.
Everyone was told of the new emphasis on speeding up games. The rule that
Hirschbeck invoked has been in the books a long time.
>2) It's not as if Gant was "in Hirschbeck's face".
Nobody, including Hirschbeck, ever said he was.
>When Gant turned away, Hirschbeck IMMEDIATELY motioned for Gant
>to step into the box. IMO, at this point in time, Hirschbeck
>was determined to show Gant exactly WHO was in charge of this game.
>Gant wasn't dawdling; he hadn't had a chance to dawdle. And Hirschbeck
>was simply exercising a power play.
That's your (perhaps colored by your partisanship of the Braves)
perception. Hirschbeck's view was that Gant was heading off for a long
walk, and in accordance with his instructions concerning speeding games up,
directed him into the batter's box.
> Gant resisted, as many of
>us might to what we thought was an unreasonable request, and
>Hirschbeck called for the pitch.
The point is, based on the rulebook and the umpires' instructions, it was
*not* an unreasonable request.
The Braves were already upset
>IMO, any game where you remember the name of the umpire was
>a bad game for the umpire.
Had Gant done as instructed, you wouldn't have remembered the name of the
umpire.
Sherri Nichols
[email protected]