Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 51521  
Subject: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 5:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Just a couple of weeks ago, the NE Patriots got busted for using game video to try and decipher the signs the opposition were using across the field (and for whatever other purposes). Now, we just learned from the TBS guy down on the field that as a designated hitter David Ortiz goes into the clubhouse between at-bats and looks a video of pitches, "studying the strike zone" of the umpire.

I submit that Ortiz is getting unfair advantage and ought to be barred from doing that. Despite the fact that I deplore umpires "having a strike zone" other than corner to corner of home plate and high and low according to the written rules, if the rest of the hitters have to go out there and guess what's going to be a called strike, then Ortiz ought to have to do the same. Same for any other hitter who uses the video for such purposes, if they do.

Seems like cheating using game video is running rampant in Boston.

/s/ S.T.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mickaelangelo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34010 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 6:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Why wouldn't all teams have access to that information with the ability to use it the same way the Sox are using it?

I'd say it's not an unfair advantage; rather, it just seems to be good preparation.

mick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34011 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I'd say it's not an unfair advantage; rather, it just seems to be good preparation.

mick
>>

It doesn't surprise me that you would say that.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34012 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't see any comparison. In this case, a hitter is using recorded information which is available to everyone on both teams to review. It's not like you have a hidden camera secretly stealing signs or anything.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34014 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 6:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I don't see any comparison.--29>>

Comparison to what, 29? It's not a matter of stare decisis with the football ruling controlling. It just happens that the Boston footballers had their own way of cheating using video.

If baseballers can't put spies in the bleachers, they shouldn't be allowed to view game video from the bleachers during a game. And a "designated hitter" who sits on his @$$ between innings ought to have to stay in the dugout and watch the contest. Designated hitters with time to "study video" obviously gain an advantage that other hitters don't have.

One more reason to abolish the DH. DHs cheat.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dmcostello Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34018 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 6:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 26
Seems like cheating using game video is running rampant in Boston.

After all these years I still can't tell if you're crazy or clueless.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mickaelangelo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34020 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 7:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It doesn't surprise me that you would say that.

/s/ S.T.



Crap. I'm transparent!

mick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: aos111 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34021 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The Cardinals have done this for years. I can only assume every MLB team has a similar setup. Just watch any MLB dugout of a batter disappearing into the locker room chances are they're reviewing an at bat. BTW the importance isn't the ump strike zone which is subject to change,but keying on a pitcher possibly giving a tip to a pitch and how you're swinging the bat.

Unlike the NFL it isn't against the rules so I don't see this as a big deal.

Andy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34025 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<Favorite Sport or Team: Red Sox Patriots--dmc>>

Heh, heh. You're busted along with your cheating ballclubs.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34026 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 7:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<The Cardinals have done this for years.--aos>>

Oh??? I didn't realize the Cardinals used a designated hitter.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34037 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/7/2007 11:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Last time I checked baseball and football were two totally different sports, governed by completely different rules.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34042 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 1:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Last time I checked baseball and football were two totally different sports, governed by completely different rules.--rfr>>

Typically non-responsive, point-missing, irrelevant, knee-jerk response.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcemerson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34043 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 2:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Just a couple of weeks ago, the NE Patriots got busted for using game video to try and decipher the signs the opposition were using across the field (and for whatever other purposes). Now, we just learned from the TBS guy down on the field that as a designated hitter David Ortiz goes into the clubhouse between at-bats and looks a video of pitches, "studying the strike zone" of the umpire.

I submit that Ortiz is getting unfair advantage and ought to be barred from doing that. Despite the fact that I deplore umpires "having a strike zone" other than corner to corner of home plate and high and low according to the written rules, if the rest of the hitters have to go out there and guess what's going to be a called strike, then Ortiz ought to have to do the same. Same for any other hitter who uses the video for such purposes, if they do.

Seems like cheating using game video is running rampant in Boston.


Normally I would be the last person on earth to defend anything that goes on in the New England area (there isn't a sports franchise up there that I don't think sucks) but isn't it quite common for football teams to study film of their opponents? In fact, is there anything in the rules keeping them from doing it during the game? In fact (again), don't the offensive and defensive coaches during the normal course of a football game get stills from television shots showing them the different offensive and defensive alignments of the opposition? How would that be all that different from what Ortiz is doing? Btw, all of that is a bit different from what New England was doing... they weren't busted for using game video, they were using their own cameras (or hired cameras) to film coaches to steal the opposition's signals.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34044 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 3:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Normally I would be the last person on earth to defend anything that goes on in the New England area (there isn't a sports franchise up there that I don't think sucks) but isn't it quite common for football teams to study film of their opponents? In fact, is there anything in the rules keeping them from doing it during the game? In fact (again), don't the offensive and defensive coaches during the normal course of a football game get stills from television shots showing them the different offensive and defensive alignments of the opposition? How would that be all that different from what Ortiz is doing? Btw, all of that is a bit different from what New England was doing... they weren't busted for using game video, they were using their own cameras (or hired cameras) to film coaches to steal the opposition's signals.--rwemerson>>

Congratulations on your Yankees' success in the win-or-go-home game, Ralph. I now predict they will take the series, midges or no midges back in Cleveland.

Now, on the subject of the thread, you are off on tangents like several others. I have already commented, and I think it is possible that you are just pulling my chain by raising the same debunked arguments again. But for someone venerable like you, I will repeat in detail.

First, the reference to the NE Patriots did not set up their situation as something governing the baseball situation. It was just coincidental that they also happen to be from Boston and the issue also happened to involve game video. That's the end of the analysis as far as they are concerned.

You go on to ask several questions regarding the NE Pats issues, though, answers to which do not inform the analysis of the baseball issue except in one respect, which I shall point out below. Answers to your questions are, yes, football teams commonly study film of their opponents, but that wasn't the issue with the Pats. The issue with the Pats was their taking video of the opposition's coaches sending in signals during the game and using that video to try to figure out what defenses were being run in real time in that same game, in order to get a competitive advantage. And yes, they do get still photos of formations on the field, etc., but that isn't the same as deciphering signals (which involve motion that still photos would never capture) and coupling those signals with what is run on the next play. The still photos are allowed; the Pats got busted for taking video of the signal-giving and trying to process that along with game action video. That's the football issue; that's how football dealt with it. You may make the argument to football that since they allow still photos, motion video should be allowed--but I have explained the difference--and it is a significant difference.

The baseball issue is of a separate kind, mostly. Begin the analysis by noting that you have a rule against teams placing spies in center field to steal signs given by catchers. I assume that rule also forbids spies from monitoring TV video in real time to steal signs from catchers. Fine. You also have rules defining what is a "ball" and what is a "strike" and umpires are there to call balls and strikes according to those rules.

However, none of that addresses what the TBS people said Ortiz was doing. They said Ortiz spent his time between at-bats (as a designated hitter) watching TV to study ball-and-strike calls by the umpire to determine what was the actual "strike zone" he was following in the current game--in order to know what to swing at and what to take next time up. As indicated by the thread title, I submit that if that is not illegal, it ought to be. It isn't the study of "game film" like you refer to in football. It is intelligence that provides a real-time advantage in the current game that none of the other batters have (except maybe the DH on the other team). We heard tonight--and we hear this over and over--that all players expect from a home plate umpire is "to be consistent" with his strike zone. So Ortiz is expecting an outside pitch he sees called a strike on video to be called a strike when he comes to bat. But it's a damn sight easier for him to figure out where the strike zone is looking at the video (probably enhanced with electronic overlays) than by watching with the naked eye from the field or from the dugout.

So he's getting an advantage (over other batters on both sides), and I say it ought to be illegal, if it isn't already.

The similarity between this and the football situation involving the NE Pats is that in both cases you have electronic observation of patterns of things being done inside the context of the current game, which are expected to be repeated, and the knowledge of which can be used to plan a strategy of attack, to one's advantage. In the football case, it was a pattern of signals being given to the other side--and baseball already outlaws the use of enhanced electronics and spyglasses to observe signals in its game. In the baseball case here under consideration, it is a pattern of calls of balls and strikes by the particular home plate umpire working the current game. It is hard to imagine a similar situation in football--unless perhaps you had a line judge who never calls encroachment and you take advantage by lining up six inches across the line of scrimmage. But again, football does not rule baseball on this, nor vice-versa. We are just comparing cases.

OK, now let's approach the whole issue from the other direction. I'll give you the best argument I can think of to allow Ortiz to look at the video to decipher the umpire's strike zone. It goes like this: The strike zone is defined by written rules, and all umpires are supposed to follow and enforce the written rules. But various umpires fail to follow and enforce the written rules as to what is a ball and what is a strike, and in various ways define the "strike zone" according to their own personal whim, which may vary from game-to-game. Sooooo, since umpires do not declare to all involved what they are going to call a ball or a strike at the beginning of or during any specific contest, it is reasonable to allow batters to use whatever means are available to try and learn what will be a ball or a strike--otherwise they risk being put out on the basis of arbitrary rules of which they have no knowledge or prior notice. Hmmmpf. The presence of the designated hitter is what trumps that argument. The rest of the batters are too busy to study video during a game. A DH gets special advantage if he is allowed to study real-time video and apply the knowledge gained to the current game. So it ought to be outlawed.

/s/ S.T.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HardyWeinberg Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34045 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 12:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
However, none of that addresses what the TBS people said Ortiz was doing. They said Ortiz spent his time between at-bats (as a designated hitter) watching TV to study ball-and-strike calls by the umpire to determine what was the actual "strike zone" he was following in the current game--in order to know what to swing at and what to take next time up.

DHs have been doing this since time immemorial. The good ones anyway. Edgar Martinez and Harold Baines were on record about this sort of thing 10-15 yrs ago.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mbarr Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34046 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
DHs have been doing this since time immemorial. The good ones anyway. Edgar Martinez and Harold Baines were on record about this sort of thing 10-15 yrs ago.

Irrelevant. They're not from Cheaterville.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gurdison Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34047 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
<The presence of the designated hitter is what trumps that argument. The rest of the batters are too busy to study video during a game.>


I don't see this as an issue. There are lots of position players who will come in and look at some video when they come in from the field too. Others don't want to be bothered as they feel it can distract them from their normal routines. The video may help a player, but it is can also give them information overload. Anyone who has ever played golf can attest to the many difficulties associated with thinking too much about all the elements of your swing while you are on the course.

A ballplayer can get just as good a sense of the umps strike zone from talking with each teammate as he comes back to the dugout. They still have to know what is important to process and what is not. Knowing that the ump is giving the pitcher the outside strike is not relevant if you know he is not going to be pitching you outside. There is something to be said for taking in the game in real time with your eyeballs rather than spending too much time on the video machine.

I read a good article yesterday about a liflong Phillies fan. He had his heart broken in 1964. Through someone at his paper he reconnected with a former rookie member of that team Johnny Briggs. It was a great read as Briggs related how different the game is today as far as salaries and year round conditioning. He was paid $6500 for that season. Many players today collect more than that per at bat. It was a lot tougher life for a player back then. You had to find real jobs in the off season, and few players made enough to carry them into their post basball lives. Briggs, now 63 is due to reire soon from the Passaic County Sherrif's department.

What struck me is the difference in perspective a fan has in watching a game compared to a former player. Being an avid fan for decades I feel I have a certain knowledge of the game. That pales in comparison to what a player sees when looking at the same thing. The author went to the Phils playoff game with Briggs and sat in some of the cheaper seats. Briggs was stunned by the size of the field. He said it looked like an American Legion field. He said the center field fence was 50 feet closer than it was at Connie Mack stadium. He thought back to how many additional HRs he could have hit playing there.

Even from 400 feet away, Briggs could tell the batter was sitting on a curveball. I compare it to listening to a piece of music I like. How I hear it and appreciate it is totally different than how a musician will listen to it and analyze it. He said ahead of the event that it was a big mistake to bring in a relief pitcher to face Kaz Matsui. that turned out to be the game (and the series) breaker.

I will try to see if I can find a link to the story as I am sure it would interest people here even if they are not Phillies fans. The article even had a photo of the 1964 World Series progam with a Phillies pennant flag flying on the flagpole.

Anyway, technology and money have changed the game significantly. However, it is still played on the field. It still comes down to the individual battle between the pitcher and the hitter. I suspect that there are a number of pitchers and pitching coaches who also look at some video between innings too. Everybody is looking to pick up something that may help them. How much it actually helps them is debatable.


B

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34048 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 1:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<<The presence of the designated hitter is what trumps that argument. The rest of the batters are too busy to study video during a game.>--S.T.


I don't see this as an issue. There are lots of position players who will come in and look at some video when they come in from the field too. Others don't want to be bothered as they feel it can distract them from their normal routines. The video may help a player, but it is can also give them information overload. Anyone who has ever played golf can attest to the many difficulties associated with thinking too much about all the elements of your swing while you are on the course.--gurd
>>

Once again, what I'm objecting to is not the use of video in general, but the use of video to try and analyze a specific home plate umpire during a specific game. You gloss over that distinction in your comments.

As an aside, I would have no problem with using the video after the game is over to send to the league office as evidence that the umpire is incompetent and/or corrupt.

As for your golf comparison, there is no umpire in golf.

There are listening devices that would enable teams to hear what is said in the opposition's dugout or during visits to the mound. I suppose that will be the next technical advance in game strategy.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gurdison Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34049 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 3:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<the use of video to try and analyze a specific home plate umpire during a specific game. You gloss over that distinction in your comments.>


I gloss over that because it is totally irrelevant. Everyone on both teams is free to do so. It simply doesn't matter.

When a player watches a game he sees it very differently than you or I would (witness 63 year old Briggs ability to still pick up on things from a great distance). Between that and talking with your own pitcher and asking him "what is he giving you tonight", you should have more than enough information to have a feel for that night's strike zone. If you are batting third like Ortiz often does, you will also get some first hand experience in the first inning.

The bigger issue is being ready for the pitchers stuff. How hard is he throwing? Can he get his curveball over for a strike? Is he able to mix his pitches up? On your side, how are the mechanics of your swing? Do I shorten up to get better contact? Do I go the other way if he pitches me that way? The golf comparison is valid IMO because there are probably as many elements to getting a baseball swing right as there are to getting a golf swing right. In either case if you dwell too much on analyzing too many of those elements while you are competing, it can throw you off your game leading to some very bad results.



B

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lswswein Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34051 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 3:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
gurdison here is the article you are talking about. It is a good one
-h

http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-1/1191732035182640.xml&coll=1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: aos111 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34052 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 4:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Gurdison that was a great story. Thanks for providing the link.

Andy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34054 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 7:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<I gloss over that because it is totally irrelevant. Everyone on both teams is free to do so. It simply doesn't matter.>

Nonsense.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34058 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/8/2007 8:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
Typically non-responsive, point-missing, irrelevant, knee-jerk response.


You don't have any point to miss.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34063 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 12:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Typically non-responsive, point-missing, irrelevant, knee-jerk response.--S.T.


You don't have any point to miss.--rfr
>>


It does appear that ignorance, like misery, loves company. Look at 'em pile in with the recs in support of that ignorance.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34069 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
The only ignorance around here is on your part. You might as well be griping about baseball players being allowed to use bats. After all, that's against the rules of football.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hirundo Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34076 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yes, thanks for the article.

On hearing the name Briggs I immediately remembered the name, though I don't recall which years I saw him play, I definitely recall seeing him hit some Cardinals pitchers hard. (Cardinals fans tend to remember that kind of thing, even after many years.) Glad to hear he is doing all right.

hirundo

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34084 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 1:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
rfr, you haven't seen the ball since the kickoff--or the first pitch. Give it up.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34085 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Give it up? You have told me that 2+2=7, but I'm the one not seeing the ball?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34092 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
rfr, your arithmetic is as faulty as your reading comprehension skills. You aren't even in the ballpark to look for the ball.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mbarr Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34093 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 3:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
rfr, your arithmetic is as faulty as your reading comprehension skills. You aren't even in the ballpark to look for the ball.

/s/ S.T.


Does anyone have any other horrible metaphors to add to this ridiculous argument? I think we're running out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: chkNYC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34095 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Does anyone have any other horrible metaphors to add to this ridiculous argument?

I won't add any metaphors (horrible or otherwise) but I will say that I am very happy that I took Jokey's good advice recently.

Perhaps ray should too.

Christina

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34107 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 6:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Does anyone have any other horrible metaphors to add to this ridiculous argument?>>

What argument? The other side never acquired a grasp of the issue. It takes two sides of an issue to make an argument.

But I see you brought some lurkers piling in. They'll never admit it, but deep down they love it. Otherwise they would be attending to other business.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34114 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Obviously it is your reading skills that need work since you did not understand that you are the one that stands accussed of bad math.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34116 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/9/2007 11:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I do believe you live in a rabbit hole, rfr. Say "hello" to Alice.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34119 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/10/2007 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Perhaps you are right about the rabbit hole. You do seem rather mad hatterish.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34163 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/10/2007 10:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Haven't you run out of nonsense yet, rfr? You seem to be straining mightily, trying to entertain the hard-core geeky lurkers here.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34166 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 9:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Haven't you run out of nonsense yet, rfr? You seem to be straining mightily, trying to entertain the hard-core geeky lurkers here.


You are the only one talking nonsense. Comparing the rules of one sport with another. As for entertainment, I am certain that the lurkers are getting quite a kick out of you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coyote97 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34168 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You are the only one talking nonsense. Comparing the rules of one sport with another. As for entertainment, I am certain that the lurkers are getting quite a kick out of you.

Actually, I think most people with a tub of popcorn get equal entertainment value out of the volleys from both sides of this petty discussion. Spring's initial comments were not "nonsense". I didn't agree with the comments. But, it is not ridiculous to compare the rules of one sport or how something is viewed by the public or media to another sport and opine about similarities the two sports should share in addressing technology being used. People have often pointed to regulation in other sports in supporting their views about application of an idea to another sport..... such as in regulation and enforcement of performance enhancing substances, or instant replay.

Don't you two get enough of this sort of interaction on PA? Are you two each trying to get the other ostracized to the back of the cafeteria? Come on now, you can both be in the cool kids crowd.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34169 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 12:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Come on now, you can both be in the cool kids crowd.

I have never been cool. Probably never will be.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: chkNYC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34170 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Actually, I think most people with a tub of popcorn get equal entertainment value out of the volleys from both sides of this petty discussion.

I don't -- and I have popcorn!

Christina

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coyote97 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34191 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 4:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't -- and I have popcorn!

I apologize for the gross generality. I am sure you enjoy the petty jabs in ST's general direction much more.

I really should dislike mcemerson more than I do, damned Yankee fan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: chkNYC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34193 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I am sure you enjoy the petty jabs in ST's general direction much more.

Not really. (Boy, you do make assumptions, don't you?)

I actually think that the thread is boring at this point. It's like listening to two young children go after each other. Neither is willing to just let it end.

Christina

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coyote97 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34194 of 51521
Subject: Re: Isn't that illegal? It should be . . . Date: 10/11/2007 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I actually think that the thread is boring at this point. It's like listening to two young children go after each other. Neither is willing to just let it end.

That was my point. I don't think either side is on the high road.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement