No word on whether he will appeal the suspension or not.

No word on whether he will appeal the suspension or not.

 

Jeez, you can't argue with an ump without getting suspended for a 2 games anymore? What did he do that was that bad?

He must have called the ump a cocksucker.

No word on whether he will appeal the suspension or not.

damn rookie you should always post a link

 

http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/jermaine.dye....2.1010621.html

 

Dye was ejected after flipping his bat in disgust and slamming his helmet while arguing with plate umpire Mike DiMuro. The helmet bounced off the ground and hit DiMuro.

5 cool points to whoever gets my reference btw.

That is a little ridiculous, considering there was no intent. This better get reduced to a game via appeal. Especially when you consider Dye's history (ie, being a classy ballplayer).

5 cool points to whoever gets my reference btw.

Eastbound and Down?

Eastbound and Down?

 

Bull Durham

 

and it was a cocksucker call, he didnt call the ump a cocksucker

Edited May 15, 200916 yr by kyyle23

That is a little ridiculous, considering there was no intent. This better get reduced to a game via appeal. Especially when you consider Dye's history (ie, being a classy ballplayer).

..and that bradley's did and he actually made contact, and has a bad history.

That is a little ridiculous, considering there was no intent. This better get reduced to a game via appeal. Especially when you consider Dye's history (ie, being a classy ballplayer).

 

I believe intent was factored in, imagine if he intended to hit the ump with a helmet. He'd be out a few weeks or longer, even as classy as he is.

Bull Durham

Heh. A little too easy maybe.

Heh. A little too easy maybe.

 

Except for Gage

Heh. A little too easy maybe.

 

As easy as shipps after a couple drinks . . .

I believe intent was factored in, imagine if he intended to hit the ump with a helmet. He'd be out a few weeks or longer, even as classy as he is.

I don't think so. Maybe another game or two, but look at what Milton Bradley got.

I don't think so. Maybe another game or two, but look at what Milton Bradley got.

 

Which is why I was thinking longer. They don't want this to get out of hand. But you are probably right.

Now watch Dye do what Bradley should have done, and take the suspension. Not that he deserves it, but because Dye is a good guy.

Once the helmet hit the umpire even though it wasn't his intention, Dye was screwed. There were he's getting suspended posts immediately on the game thread.

Seems about right. It was significantly more contact against the ump than what Bradley did, and watching the video, Dye meant for the helmet to head that direction (though maybe not hit him). 2 games seems about right to me, though I obviously wish it was less.

 

Seems about right. It was significantly more contact against the ump than what Bradley did, and watching the video, Dye meant for the helmet to head that direction (though maybe not hit him). 2 games seems about right to me, though I obviously wish it was less.

 

i dont know about his intent to throw the helmet in that direction. If you throw a helmet down like that, its like a football, it can bounce in any direction. It looked to me like Dye threw it straight down and it just happened to bounce towards the ump. And I think that Bradley was a little worse than Dye because he was in the umps face arguing a call, Dye was walking back to the dugout in disgust after saying a few words.

 

To me its debatable either way, im not going to argue that what you think is wrong, but I also think Dye can appeal and get 1 game reduced.

 

 

When he threw the helmet, he had to take responsibility for where it goes. There is no other reasonable way to write or adjudicate a rule. Intent is just to hard to determine with total certainty.

 

You can factor in character by the number of previous fines and suspensions. But above all it should be objective evidence, not subjective, that trumps.

When he threw the helmet, he had to take responsibility for where it goes. There is no other reasonable way to write or adjudicate a rule. Intent is just to hard to determine with total certainty.

 

You can factor in character by the number of previous fines and suspensions. But above all it should be objective evidence, not subjective, that trumps.

 

I know, Im saying he is going to get a suspension no matter what. just like if you bounced your bat off the ground and it happened to hit the ump in the leg or foot, I dont think the suspension would be the same as something like Delmon Young got for intentionally throwing the bat at the umpire. Dye is definitely responsible for the helmet and where it goes, but it doesnt seem like he was really trying to hit the umpire.

This will give us a couple of games to try Lillibridge in right field.

Bull Durham

 

and it was a cocksucker call, he didnt call the ump a cocksucker

 

Actually at first it calls it a cocksucker call but at the end the umpire keeps repeating pretty please call me a cocksucker, and then crash says YOUR A COCKSUCKER

I know, Im saying he is going to get a suspension no matter what. just like if you bounced your bat off the ground and it happened to hit the ump in the leg or foot, I dont think the suspension would be the same as something like Delmon Young got for intentionally throwing the bat at the umpire. Dye is definitely responsible for the helmet and where it goes, but it doesnt seem like he was really trying to hit the umpire.

 

I thought we were both basically agreeing.

This will give us a couple of games to try Lillibridge in right field.

 

Maybe they took that into account also and cut the suspension in half