[Kid T]

Wakefield 49, on 18 July 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:

This isn't hockey. There are no instigator penalties. Ortiz committed the first suspendable action.

Not really. I think the act of throwing at the batter is a suspendable action. Also, Gregg was tossed from the game (for jawing at Ortiz) before Ortiz was. I agree, that Ortiz shouldn't have charged the mound - but I don't think these facts support your position.

[Wakefield 49]

Kid T, on 19 July 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

Not really. I think the act of throwing at the batter is a suspendable action. Also, Gregg was tossed from the game (for jawing at Ortiz) before Ortiz was. I agree, that Ortiz shouldn't have charged the mound - but I don't think these facts support your position.

The third pitch was most likely intentional, but you can't suspend someone for that. He wasn't even ejected for it. A suspension for that would have a really hard time standing up to an appeal I think.

And Gregg wasn't thrown out for yelling at Ortiz, he was thrown out for leaving the mound toward the hitter. By rule that's an automatic ejection, but seeing as he only took a couple steps he wouldn't be suspended for that either.

Bottom line is, Ortiz was the first one to do anything that clearly deserves a suspension. When your position is based on things that "maybe sorta kinda" could result in a suspension, you might as well call the facts a dead beat dad, because they aren't supporting anything.

[JMDurron]

Kid T, on 19 July 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

I think the act of throwing at the batter is a suspendable action.

That's not correct. Otherwise, every pitcher who obviously throws at a batter would be suspended, and that does not happen. The pitcher who throws at a hitter who then charges the mound is almost always suspended, due to their part in causing the situation. It's still the mound charging that sparks the suspendable situation.

[Kid T]

Wakefield 49, on 19 July 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

The third pitch was most likely intentional, but you can't suspend someone for that. He wasn't even ejected for it. A suspension for that would have a really hard time standing up to an appeal I think.

And Gregg wasn't thrown out for yelling at Ortiz, he was thrown out for leaving the mound toward the hitter. By rule that's an automatic ejection, but seeing as he only took a couple steps he wouldn't be suspended for that either.

Bottom line is, Ortiz was the first one to do anything that clearly deserves a suspension. When your position is based on things that "maybe sorta kinda" could result in a suspension, you might as well call the facts a dead beat dad, because they aren't supporting anything.

You're wrong. Ortiz wasn't "first one to do anything that clearly deserves a suspension", because Gregg was suspended first. Facts!

JMDurron, on 20 July 2011 - 07:31 AM, said:

That's not correct. Otherwise, every pitcher who obviously throws at a batter would be suspended, and that does not happen. The pitcher who throws at a hitter who then charges the mound is almost always suspended, due to their part in causing the situation. It's still the mound charging that sparks the suspendable situation.

But the pitcher can be tossed if the umpire deems he is intentionally trying to hit (harm) the batter. In some cases, that results in a suspension (especially if warnings were given previously or if there was some history). I'm not saying ANY pitcher that hits a batter is suspended - see the difference?

[JMDurron]

Kid T, on 20 July 2011 - 09:11 PM, said:

You're wrong. Ortiz wasn't "first one to do anything that clearly deserves a suspension", because Gregg was suspended first. Facts!



But the pitcher can be tossed if the umpire deems he is intentionally trying to hit (harm) the batter. In some cases, that results in a suspension (especially if warnings were given previously or if there was some history). I'm not saying ANY pitcher that hits a batter is suspended - see the difference?

I do see the difference, but that's not what you said. You said "I think the act of throwing at the batter is a suspendable action.", which is not the case overall. I don't disagree with the way you put it in your second paragraph of this post. I think the pitcher usually still has to actually hit the batter in order to be suspended in most cases, though, and even that's iffy.

Was Gregg suspended first, or just tossed from the game first? They are not necessarily equivalent.

[Kid T]

JMDurron, on 21 July 2011 - 07:31 AM, said:

I do see the difference, but that's not what you said. You said "I think the act of throwing at the batter is a suspendable action.", which is not the case overall. I don't disagree with the way you put it in your second paragraph of this post. I think the pitcher usually still has to actually hit the batter in order to be suspended in most cases, though, and even that's iffy.

Was Gregg suspended first, or just tossed from the game first? They are not necessarily equivalent.

Fair points all. I think if the league determines the pitcher is intentionally throwing at the batter, it's a suspendable action. Remember that game between the Red Sox and Rays when the Rays were so bad they couldn't hit any batters despite what appeared to be at least a half-dozen attempts? I believe (though I could be wrong) a Rays pitcher was suspended.

Also, being tossed from the game usually precedes suspension (though not always). This distinction (tossed vs suspension) is what I was alluding to in the first situation (suspendable action versus getting suspended). So good discussion.