cwsox

My bet is that the league would back the Royals decision and the game would not be called a forfeit My bet is MLB will demand a security plan which has probably been written and submitted already and the game will be played, perhaps tonight in the most intense security ever. If a forfeit were to happen, we'd take the loss, on that I would bet everything. As home team we have to priovide a safe and secure environment. If we can't, then we lose, not the visitor.

Druken excess needs to be not tolerated, and the Sox need to do whatever other steps are necessary to protect those on the field. A team enforcer is not the solution. A member of the team needs to watching the game, not doing security. And lets say PK is the team enforcer and the next drunk on the field has a knife - you want PK to take the knife in his gut, or do we let trained security handle the problems?

that is an idea I strenuously disagree with. How does intentionally throwing at someone take a stand against violence? Players and other on field personnel are very vulnerable, they are watching the game, not watching their backs, nor should they have to. KC has a legit beef and it is a damn shame that they do. One of the problems in the world by the way is the continued attempt to answer violence with violence, i.e., stating that someone should intentionally throw at someone. After that on field brawl was settled, what would be the message? To keep the level of violence up? You want to intentionally court a forfeit, have our players suspended, or endanger our team next time they are in KC?

it is as lame as one can get

upsell? upsell? Is that Canadian for something?

that is interesting to say the least - and I guess, to say the most because I can't think of another comment.

The Royals have a legitimate concern. Their last two games at the Cell have included attacks on on field personnel by people coming from the stands. If it happened to us elsewhere, you'd have the same concerns. KC's GM has to stand up for his on field people or else then he would be a "pussy ass."

that is exactly what is scary. Other than the bad reputation and the loss in out of town ticket sales, etc etc etc is the possibility of that type of incident. And we have to stop selling beer to visibly drunk people. The $4.50 a beer isn't worth it.

I would suggest: 1. rigidly enforcing seating in the lower deck boxes. No ticket for there, no seat. I doubt the regulars who sit in the lower deck boxes are doing this but I bet it is people who buy tickets for elsewhere and move into those seats during the game. 2. Prosecute - although that is not in the Sox' hands, that is in the hands of the Cook County states attorney. 3. Make an announcement that if it happens again, beer sales will be cut off earlier or some other system will be used to limit beer sales. It would do wonders for self-policing. 4. Consider making some of the easy access seats "family friendly" as in no beer at all.

cw.. I never said it was bad. I know how bad it can be. Hell... I saw several of the guys here lit up on opening day . As for the Sox being sued.. I've asked my lawyer friends about this and they say no. They gave me a bunch of reasons but I don't remember any of them I work in a law office and I could spin this into a suit more ways than anyone could imagine. The Sox operate a concessions service that sells beer at the park during games. It is against the law to sell to a visibly intoxicated person. Thus - if injury happens, or anything for which liability could be claimed, a civil suit could and would follow.

and you think he is alone in that sentiment? will assault and battery, a crime, intentioanlly throwing a dangeropus weapon at another, solve the problem of us being perceived as violent? And hitting players in the head has killed and permanently diasbled people. I can't believe any Sox fan would advocate that. We have got a problem and it may only be the fact that JR is tight with Selig that keeps the All Star game in Chicago this year. If there are any more incidents, I wouldn't even bet on that. Save your wrath for the people who run on the field and attack others, not for the people who are appalled by it.

Amen. When did people in this country quit taking responsibility for their own actions? If some drunk gets leaves a bar and gets into a car and runs over your child, trust me, you will sue the bar and the bartender and collect a handsome settlement under the dram act for their serving an obviously drunk person. You will not hold the seller of alcohol harmless. Now that this has happened several times, the Sox could never claim "unforseen" circumstances again. The next incident where someone gets hurt the Sox will be sued. And that could happen even for a claim of "excssive use" or "I was blitzed and you still sold to me" which would be liabilities under the law. All the fokelore about one's own responsibility is really nice but there is a public responsibility that also has to be tended to. You may get your chocie of excessive overbearing security at the Cell or some controls set on alcohol. Which would you prefer?

And THAT is why this s*** ain't funny. Like it or not, perception becomes reality, and if the perception is that US Cellular Field is full of drunken dopes who run on the field and attack coaches or "touch umpires' arms" - I call it an attack, anyway: if you run on the field and make unwanted contact with someone, it's an attack - then SOME people will think twice about going to "a place like that". It's bad for business, it's bad public relations, and it gives people who are looking for something negative to write or report a VERY easy target. agreed

agreed

I'd cut off the beer too. The hit taken would be by the drunks and by the club who would lose a lot in profits and maybe someone would get the point. Steff, if Zach is saying things were bad and cut off the beer, i have to go with him becuase he is a pretty laid back guy so if he is saying it is bad, it was. If anyone can't go without beer for a few innings or for a game, then the problem is obvious. Maybe half-price Pepsi day should be beer free. Make it an entire family evening. Under most states dram acts, a bar or bartender that serves beer to an obviosuly introxicated person who later causes a civil or criminal liability is civily liable. How much longer do we go before the Sox get sued under the dram act? I'd much rather have beer get cut off early and/or eliminated some nights than have incredible gestapo tactics at the park and something has to happen soon. Public drunkenness may be cute to those who are drunk, but it is disgusting. And dangerous.

I agree. I would never throw a ball back and no Sox fan would ever chant "throw it back." We are not at wrigley with their childish ways.

to clarify - Minnesota winning the NCAA is certainly something to celebrate and if it is a repeat, they get their due! When I spoke of Minnesota as a state versus Michigan as a state - what is the number of Div I programs? I really don't know what the state of Minnesota has - we have UM, MSU, Western, Central, Ferris, Lake Superior State, and Northern all playing at the level. Looks like Minnesota has at least four? The argument between WCHA and CCHA goes on every year - they certainly can arguably claim being the toughest two! We respect WCHA teams in CCHA territory! In minor league we have teams in Detroit (Vipers), Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and it seems to me somewhere else - I suppose what this is all about is that we shouldn't be saying who is better than who as that is arguable but not definitive but be proud that as Spiff has included Massachusetts, that our three states have the most extensive programs at the college level and fanatical fans at all levels. Detrot remains hockeytown - they have that trademarked - and the state of Michigan holds the single game attendance record for a college hockey game, and until someone tops that, that record stays!

oh who cares what the media says. Take advantage of what you can - if you can save a few bucks and got to two games instead of one thereby, or go to one game instead of none, so much the better.

I agree.

so you have declared a) that you didn't "come after" cwsox when the title of the thread was "CWSOX!!!!!!!!!!!!/ Detroit sucks"; B) that you are misunderstood, and all you really wanted was to share your views, which i suppose might be understandable, but when your first two posts in the thread consist of mostly "detroit sucks, cujo sucks, wings are old" etc, there is nothing to misunderstand; c) that i am childish, when you said, "I can only wonder if cwsox was actually crying while posting, or if he slept at all last night." which i guess to you isn't a childish statement; and d) that i should get a life, when the first thing you did when the hockey game ended was to run over to your computer and taunt cwsox. well i must say, your case is rock-solid. spiff, you are right that it was a going out after me. Someone was calling me out. I appreciate your words. Truth is that I am not that big of a Red Wing fan - they are my pro hockey team but they are way down on my list of priorites. White Sox first, then Michigan second, and everything else way down on the priority list. I think I got involved in the thread only when the total fandom here was trashed - one of my closest friends and constant Sox game attender with me is a huge Avs fan. Big time. He lives and dies by the Avs second only to how he lives and dies by the Sox. In our game 7 with the Avs last season, we won 7-0. I have yet to say a word about it to him. I know how badly he felt, and I didn't need to add to my joy by adding to his pain by trash talk to a friend. My grandson is a UM fan like me - his stepfather is a MSU fan - when we beat them 49-0 in football, I instructed my grandson to say nothing to his father - we could rock and roll about it but no need to talk smack. We celebrate our wins, not mock others when their team loses. When someone throws enough stuff at me I sometimes respond which I shouldn't at all. A few threads ago I tried to change the subject to how unfortunate it was that the Wirtz' owned the Hawks since nothing good will happen while they do. That is one of the key factors - not that the Red Wings are "better" than the Black Hawks, simply the Red Wings owner will spend to do what it takes to win. And these things go in cycles anyway. I have seen the Montreal era, the Edmonton era, the Islanders era. the current Red Wings era in that 3 of 6 constitute an era. It will pass and another team will be at the top for a few years and then it will cycle to someone else. I am enjoying the Red Wings time such as it is such as I follow hockey. We lose tonight, I shall not lose 1 second of sleep. People have different standards of "ribbing" and what is trash talk and smack. I jumped on Heather last night in the chat with a one-line greeting because she knows I don't really mean it, it was a joke, and she responded with a funny line back and we were done with that. I will take koch at this word that he meant it as humorous. I certainly appreciate what you wrote and I want to thank you, thank you very much.

I am not getting into the difference of opinion right now it is late and I am off to bed but i must say: Edina? You have been to edina? My best bud is from Pillager (Brainard) so we know Edina. No one knows Edina! so I am impressed. good night all - for another day I can continue this... koch sucked tonight and has ruined my mood and St JosE6 and PK fielded like s*** and that is all I can take

ball gets away from catcher Rios tries to advance and out 2-5

we lose, stupidly

I'll try it again so I report exactly

chatroom doesn't work for everyone anyone want to give me a clue like score and inning please