Did Rogers Cheat

[imation]

What makes you guys think you can see better than someone who was on the field?

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by imation

What makes you guys think you can see better than someone who was on the field?

Bonds or Rogers issue?

[mikev]

Originally Posted by imation

What makes you guys think you can see better than someone who was on the field?

Other than high-definition video cameras with hellaciously close zooming ability?

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Roundin Third

Actually LaRussa did about all he could. It is the responsibility of the umpires to inspect Rogers for a foreign substance. It is not an appeal play - like batting out of order or leaving early when tagging up. If the umpire feels there is an illegal substance he is to follow through with an ejection, regardless of what the opposing manager does.
In this case it appears that the umpires did not investigate the situation very thoroughly, or chose to overlook it once Rogers washed his hands. Had they had the insight of similar instances in prior games, I am guessing their investigation would have taken a different turn.

About all LaRussa could have done differently was make a bigger deal of it (waiving hands, jumping up and down) when he brought it to the umpire's attention. This would have brought even more scrutiny from Palermo, MLB officials and the broadcast, which would likely have resulted in the plate umpire going to the mound immediately. Instead LaRussa was low-key and the umpires reacted in kind.

From what we've read, La Russa did not ask the umpires to inspect Rogers' hand. If he had asked for an inspection, then, and only then would the umps have looked into it. It isn't up to the umpire to make this call. It's up to the manager to prompt the umpire to inspect the player. La Russa didn't do that. The umpire did tell Rogers to clean the stuff off his palm and La Russa was satisfied and the issue was dropped.

Originally Posted by imation

What makes you guys think you can see better than someone who was on the field?

WAFFLE!!!

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

Here's the key quote:


Here's my problem with this situation - since when did it become the opposing manager's job to police the activities of pitchers on the mound? Every Cards hitter saw it, it was easy to see on TV (and one would think for people standing 50 feet from him) and Steve Palermo could have easily got involved while Rogers was pitching. So, why is the home plate umpire (as well as all the other officials on the field) getting a pass for letting Rogers leave the mound and wash his hands off without being inspected?

It seems to me this would be akin to having a hitter foul off a pitch and splinter the bat with the appearance of cork. But, unless the opposing manager came out and told the umpire the check the bat, the ump would simply let the hitter continue with a new bat and not get involved. Then, after numerous video showed the appearance of cork a half inning later say "Well, the opposing manager didn't want me to check it so we can't do much now".

If an umpire can't see crap all over a pitcher's hand after a full inning of pitches, comments by the opposing hitters and an umpire supervisor seeing all the content on the TV, I worry a lot more about the competancy of the homeplate umpires than either manager.

It seems to be that the umps didn't want to deal with "the stench" of tossing a starting pitcher in game 2 of the series and chose to avoid getting involved until they had to. You shouldn't need the opposing manager to run out on the field and tackle the starting pitcher in order to investigate what was an obvious question on the substance on Rogers' hand. You have half a dozen umps out there and not one noticed the big splotch of crud on his pitching hand? And this is the vision/observation power we trust on close calls at each base?

Exactly, what I've been saying. Everyone involved was more interested in preserving the integrity of the game. It was caught in the first inning, so La Russa didn't persue the issue any further.

I don't believe the competency of the umpires is the case. I believe MLB didn't want the "stench" either, so they dropped it.

And Rogers know it was there. No doubt. I used to pitch and if I had a smudge on my hand, in the same exact place, on a number of different occasions as Rogers has had, I would definitely know it was there.

He got away with it for a while, but I doubt he ever will again.

[Roundin Third]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

From what we've read, La Russa did not ask the umpires to inspect Rogers' hand. If he had asked for an inspection, then, and only then would the umps have looked into it. It isn't up to the umpire to make this call. It's up to the manager to prompt the umpire to inspect the player. La Russa didn't do that. The umpire did tell Rogers to clean the stuff off his palm and La Russa was satisfied and the issue was dropped.

Actually, this is not true. This rule is not enforced based on an opponents appeal - the rule is enforced anytime when in judgment of the umpire a foreign substance is being used by the pitcher. Similar to when an umpire recognizes an illegal bat is being used, he does not wait for the other team to appeal, he enforces the rule when he sees it.

After LaRussa brought it to the attention of the umpire, one of the following must have taken place:
a) in the judgment of the umpire, it was dirt and not a foreign substance and washing it off was sufficient to resume play.
b) in the judgment of the umpire it was a foreign substance that was not intentionally being used to doctor the ball
or
c) Being Game 2 of the World Series, the umpire did not want a controversial ejection to change the course of the series and felt that washing the hands was sufficient to continue.

I believe option a) to be the case, in that a routine observation led the umpire to believe it was dirt. If LaRussa had made a bigger issue of things, the umpire would have been 'forced' to make a closer investigation (even if initially just for show) and likely an ejection would have ensued.

[GForce]

Originally Posted by Roundin Third

Actually, this is not true. This rule is not enforced based on an opponents appeal - the rule is enforced anytime when in judgment of the umpire a foreign substance is being used by the pitcher. Similar to when an umpire recognizes an illegal bat is being used, he does not wait for the other team to appeal, he enforces the rule when he sees it.

After LaRussa brought it to the attention of the umpire, one of the following must have taken place:
a) in the judgment of the umpire, it was dirt and not a foreign substance and washing it off was sufficient to resume play.
b) in the judgment of the umpire it was a foreign substance that was not intentionally being used to doctor the ball
or
c) Being Game 2 of the World Series, the umpire did not want a controversial ejection to change the course of the series and felt that washing the hands was sufficient to continue.

I believe option a) to be the case, in that a routine observation led the umpire to believe it was dirt. If LaRussa had made a bigger issue of things, the umpire would have been 'forced' to make a closer investigation (even if initially just for show) and likely an ejection would have ensued.

The head of umpiring (Palermo) has indicated that LaRussa had the right to demand an inspection. He did not do so, but he does have that right, and had he done so the umpire would have been compelled to oblige.

GH

[Roundin Third]

Originally Posted by GForce

The head of umpiring (Palermo) has indicated that LaRussa had the right to demand an inspection. He did not do so, but he does have that right, and had he done so the umpire would have been compelled to oblige.

I am not disagreeing with this...LaRussa certainly could have asked for an inspection. But, the coaches appeal is not required for the inspection to take place. If the umpire thought it was something other than dirt, he should have taken the initiative to make the inspection. I believe Palermo is just attempting to deflect the attention away from his umpiring crew and putting the onus on LaRussa and the Cardinals.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by GForce

The head of umpiring (Palermo) has indicated that LaRussa had the right to demand an inspection. He did not do so, but he does have that right, and had he done so the umpire would have been compelled to oblige.

GH

This is exactly what I read. Thanks.

roundin' third...That being said, the umps and all involved used their descretion and decided not to take it to the next level. We can call it neglect, some call it incompetence, some call it indifference. It was La Russa call. The umpire told Rogers to clean of the "dirt" from his hand. Rogers did and the rest is history.

Only there is great suspicion that it wasn't dirt.

[jaxmagicman]

Quoting ESPN kills me, but here we go.

"• Say what you want about whether he should have screamed and yelled and demanded a full shower, but understand this: Anybody who says Tony La Russa didn't ask the umpires to check Rogers because of his friendship with Jim Leyland doesn't know Tony La Russa."

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Quoting ESPN kills me, but here we go.

"• Say what you want about whether he should have screamed and yelled and demanded a full shower, but understand this: Anybody who says Tony La Russa didn't ask the umpires to check Rogers because of his friendship with Jim Leyland doesn't know Tony La Russa."

It's simply this:

There were other reasons he didn't make a federal case out of it.

Tony said, "It wasn't dirt." That means he suspects it was some foreign substance. Tony knows that a pitcher caught with a foreign substance will be ejected and suspended. He got the umps to get Rogers to clean it off and they swept it under the rug. Why are we even still discussing this still? I thought I already let you win the argument?

We know all of the elements of the case, the evidence is clear and everyone's motive is clear. The integrity of the game was more important than disrupting the World Series over this incident.

With all due respect to ESPN, they aren't considering the big picture.

[kuma78]

www.bigleaguebaseballreport.com

We talk all about it on there.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by kuma78

www.bigleaguebaseballreport.com

We talk all about it on there.

Is there a free ipod or free laptop or free massaging chair for visiting?

[phenom]

Originally Posted by kuma78

www.bigleaguebaseballreport.com

We talk all about it on there.

And the title of the first blog is:

"Do We Really Have to Talk About it?"



That's like a free ride on your wedding day, or something.

[AnotherAlias]

Just in case anyone missed this fine editorial regarding Kenny "Pinetar" Rogers and MLB.

Mariotti places the blame where it should be placed. So, let's turn this into a Selig bashing thread.


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mario...-jay26.article

The real smudge, once again, is on Bud

October 26, 2006
BY JAY MARIOTTI Sun-Times Columnist
ST. LOUIS -- Somewhere in the new Busch Stadium, maybe beside the neon ''Big Mac Land'' ad that remembers a disgraced Mark McGwire, a big asterisk should be erected. In fact, make it bigger than the shiny, yellowish-brown smudge on Kenny Rogers' hand, because this is going down as the Tainted World Series (*).
We'll remember it as the October when baseball didn't enforce an important rule in its book, a red-letter law involving integrity. Commissioner Bud Selig was so eager to announce his new labor deal with the players association that he failed to intervene in the Rogers debate, which suggests again that he's more interested in making money than keeping the sport honest. When the umpiring crew botched the episode in Game 2, refusing to investigate and ''undress'' Rogers when millions of TV viewers saw the suspicious splotch on the pitcher's throwing hand, it screamed for an immediate Selig reaction that at the very least censured the umps for their lame indifference and, more urgently, launched a probe.

But Selig, ignoring the national furor just as he was slow to the switch when an eight-letter word starting with ''s'' surfaced in the '90s, put his mouth in lockdown mode. ''I thought they handled the situation as well as they possibly could have ... and handled it right,'' Selig said of the umps. ''Neither the umpires nor the manager [Tony La Russa of the Cardinals] felt any need to press on. I think we'll leave it at that.''


Time to reread Rule 8.02
Sorry, but America doesn't want to leave it at that. Just because La Russa didn't make a huge fuss, before revealing his true feelings a day later, doesn't mean the umpires should have given Rogers a hall pass. This stinks more four days later than it did Sunday night, when I watched the sorry story unfold in Comerica Park. How does Rogers slide out of serious trouble when so many baseball ethics offenders have been nabbed? How does Selig skirt the issue -- again, in the WORLD SERIES (*) -- when Rule 8.02 states any pitcher caught using a foreign substance is subject to an immediate ejection and a 10-game suspension? How does Selig let his umpiring supervisor, Steve Palmero, say the substance was dirt when it clearly wasn't dirt, as La Russa and Cardinals hitting coach Hal McRae have said? ''It was so blatant,'' McRae told USA Today. ''It's a shame a guy would cheat in a World Series game. It hurts the integrity of the game. He wasn't just cheating by using pine tar; he was scuffing balls, too.''

More to the article...click link. People are whining about copyright infringement, it appears.

[kuma78]

Mods, you might want to delete that post before me due to copyright infringement.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by kuma78

Mods, you might want to delete that post before me due to copyright infringement.

Mods, do you see PMs a lot faster than you see posts here?

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by kuma78

Mods, you might want to delete that post before me due to copyright infringement.

Did you report me?

Be honest...

[kuma78]

All I did was that post. You can't post full articles. As a journalist myself, nothing bugs me more.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by kuma78

All I did was that post. You can't post full articles. As a journalist myself, nothing bugs me more.

Yeah, we're all writers and journalists.

I gave a link to the original article and the author's name was included. He gets full credit and he knows it. The exposure he gets from me, with or without the entire article, is more than he would get without my help.

It's free advertising for him no matter how one spins the issue.