HeadHunterLA

Who you calling ass clown pal? Post the chart from the first AB, dipstick behind the plate missed two.

That was number two, barely made it. Number one wasn't close.

First, the idea of "free speech" refers to first amendment restrictions on Congress. Doesn't apply to baseball (or most other contexts). Second, I don't think you understand what a right is: if players had the right to say whatever they wanted, then no umpire would ever be justified in ejecting them. If you think the EJ was justified, then you don't think he had a right to say what he did in the manner he did. Any player certainly has the capacity to say whatever he wants, and, as you point out, there will often be consequences for doing so. That capacity does not entail a right. LMAO, you are telling me that Free Speech only applies to first amendment restrictions on Congress??? Are you serious??? It doesn't apply to baseball or most other contexts??? I think we have a bigger problem here and I might have to resepecfully leave this forum. Welll there is this and the other comment by someone saying Trayvon Martin deserved to die because he chose to live the thug life. But that is a whole other conversation. Maven, I have to ask this, did you graduate high school? And if so did you pay any attention whatsoever in your civics or governemnt classes? Because you and I, whether we are on a baseball field or in a bar, wherever have the right to free speech. We can say what we want to say. Now because their are rules in baseball you may have to pay a penalty for utilizing your right to free speech in a way that offends an umpire's sensibilities. And that penalty might be an early exit from the ball game. And to be very clear, I understand what a right is a lot better than you do. Wow, I am out. You're free to leave...... Thanks Bam, I'll take that under advisement.

First, the idea of "free speech" refers to first amendment restrictions on Congress. Doesn't apply to baseball (or most other contexts). Second, I don't think you understand what a right is: if players had the right to say whatever they wanted, then no umpire would ever be justified in ejecting them. If you think the EJ was justified, then you don't think he had a right to say what he did in the manner he did. Any player certainly has the capacity to say whatever he wants, and, as you point out, there will often be consequences for doing so. That capacity does not entail a right. LMAO, you are telling me that Free Speech only applies to first amendment restrictions on Congress??? Are you serious??? It doesn't apply to baseball or most other contexts??? I think we have a bigger problem here and I might have to resepecfully leave this forum. Welll there is this and the other comment by someone saying Trayvon Martin deserved to die because he chose to live the thug life. But that is a whole other conversation. Maven, I have to ask this, did you graduate high school? And if so did you pay any attention whatsoever in your civics or governemnt classes? Because you and I, whether we are on a baseball field or in a bar, wherever have the right to free speech. We can say what we want to say. Now because their are rules in baseball you may have to pay a penalty for utilizing your right to free speech in a way that offends an umpire's sensibilities. And that penalty might be an early exit from the ball game. And to be very clear, I understand what a right is a lot better than you do. Wow, I am out.

Really? Looked like balls to me. And you have seen pitches 2 more inches off the plate callled strikes? Then those were balls too.

I don't care if they were the worst calls in the history of baseball. He's out, and he needs to get off the diamond. Nowhere in the rules, manuals, or the traditions of baseball is a player permitted — much less given the right — to argue balls and strikes. Really? Traditionally players have always let an umpire know if they disagreed with the strike zone. Whether they do it in a subtle way or by making an ass of themselves as Harper did on the second punch out. The bottom line is no one, except for us umpires really cares who is calling the balls and strikes. They came to see the players play and decide the outcome of the game. Did Harper deserve to get tossed? Absolutley! But whoever was behind the dish that day rung him up on two pitches that were probably not strikes, he needs to be better. The first pitch was outside, but a pitch a left handed hitter should expect to be a strike. The second pitch was a strike, no doubt. Both were balls, period. Umpires have a hard on for Harper.

On other sites for $250

I'd have no call with a firm reminder not to touch a ball in play.

He doesn't have to like the call. He has to sit down and shut up. No he doesn't have to sit down and shut up. He was rung up twice on questionable calls. Yeah he might whine a bit too much but he plays his ass off and absolutely has the right to voice his opinion. Is this a rule based statement? I don't believe this for a second, he might have the ability but to say it's a right that players have, is kind of going a bit too far. Dude, it's called free speech, not a rules based statement. He has THE RIGHT to say whatever the hell he wants. And the PU has the right to dump him whenever he sees fit.

Oh my! The &^&^& sandwich gets even more tasty!

I don't care if they were the worst calls in the history of baseball. He's out, and he needs to get off the diamond. Nowhere in the rules, manuals, or the traditions of baseball is a player permitted — much less given the right — to argue balls and strikes. Really? Traditionally players have always let an umpire know if they disagreed with the strike zone. Whether they do it in a subtle way or by making an ass of themselves as Harper did on the second punch out. The bottom line is no one, except for us umpires really cares who is calling the balls and strikes. They came to see the players play and decide the outcome of the game. Did Harper deserve to get tossed? Absolutley! But whoever was behind the dish that day rung him up on two pitches that were probably not strikes, he needs to be better.

He doesn't have to like the call. He has to sit down and shut up. No he doesn't have to sit down and shut up. He was rung up twice on questionable calls. Yeah he might whine a bit too much but he plays his ass off and absolutley has the right to voice his opinion. Absolutely 100% correct, ...... BUT ..... NOT by waving your hands and bat in the air and making an a$$ out of yourself .... there IS a difference There is a difference, you are correct. And he voiced his opinion correctly on the first one, I guess the second one just sent hom over the edge.

He doesn't have to like the call. He has to sit down and shut up. No he doesn't have to sit down and shut up. He was rung up twice on questionable calls. Yeah he might whine a bit too much but he plays his ass off and absolutley has the right to voice his opinion.

What the hell is weak interference? The form of interference like backswing interference -- return the runners but no out. There is no such thing.

I would respectfully say that your UIC on this particular subject has his head frimly planted up you know where. I have never heard anything like this.

I would be calling, loudly, "I've got third if he comes! I've got third!" Yep, a little communication goes a long way.

Guy had already started his wind up, see ya Mr. Gomes.

Yep.

What the hell is weak interference?

Yeah, if I were Harper I would be bitching too.

Great call of course and announcers do their typical bang up job of understaing the rules!

LMAO, that was funny.

This is NOTHING!!!

www.honigs.com www.ump-attire.com