They should plunk rizzo or cuntreras.

Me either.  It is ridiculous how he hangs over it.  I suppose he would just drop his padded elbow into the pitch biggio style.

APIAD wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/chasepwilliams/status/1001202534734876672

I wonder what this was about. Freese looks calm.

First time I've ever seen a player get into it with the bat boy.

JV wrote:

Maybe Cora tried picking his pocket like he did Polanco's.

It's funny how Cora seemed to get more aggressive once Polanco pinned him to the railing.
Supposedly, Freese was upset because the Pirates didn't retaliate for Rizzo's slide.
Hurdle opted instead to complain about the Cubs, then he read scripture.
 

APIAD wrote:

I like tlr method. He would retaliate when he saw fit. When he saw fit. I like that because everyone know what happened and why but it is the next series or 2 series from the incident.

I've read the argument against plunking Rizzo his next time up was it would have loaded the bases, but the Pirates were already trailing, 5-0, in the top of the ninth inning, when he came to bat. Seemed like a pretty good time to retaliate to me.
I don't understand why what Rizzo did is still a legal play, especially when it looks like he went out of the baseline to make contact with Diaz. Maybe because it happens so infrequently. It seems like a worse move than crashing the catcher, because in at least some instances the catcher has time to brace himself for the contact. Yesterday, Diaz had already made a play and was making the throw to first when Rizzo took out his leg. To me, that's almost like clipping or a chop block in football.


 

artie_fufkin wrote:

I wonder how Maddon would feel if one of the Pirates took out Contreras' knee on a similar slide. Setting aside Hurdle's usual bluster and outrage, he does have a point. If we're trying to keep catchers healthy by preventing runners from barreling into them, why do we allow runners to slide into their legs when they're not looking?
I get it. There are people who miss the contact in the game, and there used to be part of me that thought the elimination of take-out slides and collision plays at the plate would have a deleterious effect on the sport. It hasn't. At all.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/anthony-rizzos-questionable-slide-adds-controversy-big-win-pirates-215046644.html



 

It's pitiful that the umps blew that call.  But what I want to know is who the assholes are who, even the benefit of replay, are declaring that it was a legal play.
 

forsberg_us wrote:

It appears that MLB has decided that the umpires erred and Rizzo should have been called for interference.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/23642672/mlb-believes-anthony-rizzo-slide-vs-pittsburgh-pirates-was-interference

So how would that work?  The rule specifically states that the runner should be declared out, and then goes on to say, "In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision."  But the rule doesn't provide for the batter.  If the runners have to return to the last base touched, then the runners would go back to first and second.  Is the batter out?  Does he go back to the plate and continue his at bat?  The rule is less than clear.

I would think it's up to the umpire(s) to decide whether the batter would have been out had the interference not occurred. But that's just a guess on my part.
 

Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

I like tlr method. He would retaliate when he saw fit. When he saw fit. I like that because everyone know what happened and why but it is the next series or 2 series from the incident.

I've read the argument against plunking Rizzo his next time up was it would have loaded the bases, but the Pirates were already trailing, 5-0, in the top of the ninth inning, when he came to bat. Seemed like a pretty good time to retaliate to me.
I don't understand why what Rizzo did is still a legal play, especially when it looks like he went out of the baseline to make contact with Diaz. Maybe because it happens so infrequently. It seems like a worse move than crashing the catcher, because in at least some instances the catcher has time to brace himself for the contact. Yesterday, Diaz had already made a play and was making the throw to first when Rizzo took out his leg. To me, that's almost like clipping or a chop block in football.


 

I agree with everything except the idea of retaliating immediately.  I like the idea of leaving him to wonder every time he comes to the plate when it's going to happen.  Frankly, I like the idea of catching Rizzo exposed on a close play at first.
 

Yep i like that to.  Id lean towards plunking cuntreras.  Why?  If rizzo wants to go after the pirates catcher then the pirates can go after the cubs catcher.  And if rizzo cares about his teammates he will think twice before being a dick.

APIAD wrote:

I know there is the candyass attitude that you should never retaliate because it could intentionally injury someone.  My opinion is that it is the checks and balances like this that keep the game in line.

I know the sports are apples and oranges, but there was a lot less dirty play in hockey before the league started its crackdown on fighting. The players policed themselves better than the officials or the league.

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

I know there is the candyass attitude that you should never retaliate because it could intentionally injury someone. My opinion is that it is the checks and balances like this that keep the game in line.

I know the sports are apples and oranges, but there was a lot less dirty play in hockey before the league started its crackdown on fighting. The players policed themselves better than the officials or the league.

Oh, I think there's more to it than that. It's convenient for hockey people to take shots at Bettman because of his basketball background, but the sport has changed so much since Dave Schultz and Tiger Williams were duking it out with each other. Instead of the best 120 or 240 Canadians, the league now has the best (or almost all of the best, now the Pavel Datsuyk is back in the KHL) players from all around the globe. It's all about skill and speed now, and it's harder to justify giving a spot to a Dave Semenko or a Gino Odjick. The European leagues don't condone fighting nearly as much as the NHL, and it's almost been completely eradicated from the North American amateur leagues because the sanctions are so severe. Take a kid like Ryan Donato who progressed from high school hockey to juniors to Harvard to the Bruins. The first hockey fight he probably saw when he was on the ice was in this year's playoffs.
But I do love watching the footage of some of those epic brawls from the old days. And the crackdown on fighting has given rise to players like Matt Cooke, whose entire skill set seemed to be his ability to hit someone in the head when they weren't looking, because he's not afraid of repercussions. I would very much have liked to have watched Matt Cooke get tangled up in a corner with Gordie Howe to see what ensued.

You sort of missed my point--though you got to it with the Matt Cooke reference.  Speed and skill doesn't have to exclude fighting.  There were plenty of skilled players who knew how to drop their gloves when the situation called for it.  Cam Neely, Brendan Shanahan, Scott Stevens and plenty of other very good hockey players knew how, and when a fight was called for.  I'm fairly confident that if the fighting rules were different that there are plenty of players in today's NHL who could police the ice and limit some of the elbows to the head and slew footing that has become commonplace in today's NHL.

And that's where I come back to Rizzo (and players like him).  Do you think Rizzo would be as big of a dick if the league didn't allow him to wear body armor to the plate?  Do you think Pedro Martinez would have engaged in half of the antics he did if he had played in a league where the pitcher had to bat?

Turns out it's Diaz's fault because, you know ...
If he has "eyes in the back of (his) head," there would always be circus work.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/joe-maddon-thinks-pirates-catcher-blame-anthony-rizzos-slide-235115166.html

artie_fufkin wrote:

Turns out it's Diaz's fault because, you know ...
If he has "eyes in the back of (his) head," there would always be circus work.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/joe-maddon-thinks-pirates-catcher-blame-anthony-rizzos-slide-235115166.html

Geez-us...Maddon needs to shut up.  Either that or someone needs to Don Zimmer him.