Pretending to be hit by pitch
Jersey
Posts: 542
in Sports Talk
I've heard it argued that this is fair game. What's your opinion?
Wise men learn more from fools than fools learn from the wise.
0
Comments
<< <i>you ever watch soccer? my lord, i can't stand it when people pretend to get hit (cough JETER!). you want to impress me, when you get hit and the ump doesn't see it, don't wine about it, get back in the box because you'd rather hit than take a walk anyways. >>
soccer, NBA, same thing
The correct answer is "Yes"
<< <i>you ever watch soccer? my lord, i can't stand it when people pretend to get hit (cough JETER!). you want to impress me, when you get hit and the ump doesn't see it, don't wine about it, get back in the box because you'd rather hit than take a walk anyways. >>
I play indoor soccer every Tuesday night, and I make sure that when people fall, it's for a reason
Mike
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
plate and take your cuts.
<< <i>In little league we teach the kids that if you are hit with the pitch you take first base. If you are not hit, then you stay at home
plate and take your cuts. >>
Teach the kids in Little League whatever you think is best...but in the "big league" it's all about the money and winning, and if a player needs to get on first base in a particular situation to help his team win a ballgame, then ya do what ya gotta do.
Edited to add that it's taking it a bit too far, though, to have the trainer come out to take a look at your owwie after you've already been awarded first ... a la Jeter.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Jeter does act---Didn't you ever see him in those Ford commercials. >>
I've also seen him on Saturday Night Live plugging his restaurant, "Derek Jeter's Taco Hole"
But I think any youth sports coach who encourage their kids to lie about being hit should be run out of youth sports.
<< <i>If professionals choose to do this and the officials buy it -- whether it's batters pretending to be hit, football punters pretending that they were roughed or soccer players pretty much always -- that's fine.
But I think any youth sports coach who encourage their kids to lie about being hit should be run out of youth sports. >>
That's where it starts. Lying verbally or in our actions is one in the same.
<< <i>
...but in the "big league" it's all about the money and winning, and if a player needs to get on first base in a particular situation to help his team win a ballgame, then ya do what ya gotta do. >>
I guess everyone who is in this camp believes that politicians, banksters, wall street, and casino houses should "do what ya gotta
do" in order to cheat the public, because it's all about winning.
<< <i>I guess everyone who is in this camp believes that politicians, banksters, wall street, and casino houses should "do what ya gotta
do" in order to cheat the public, because it's all about winning. >>
Well, I partially agree, but lying to take down an economy and spreading lots of economic misery for personal gain and possibly changing the outcome of a sporting event are hardly in the same league.
<< <i>
Well, I partially agree, but lying to take down an economy and spreading lots of economic misery for personal gain and possibly changing the outcome of a sporting event are hardly in the same league. >>
Nah, we're not talking about taking down an economy. We're just talking about a bookie/casino tipping the scales in their favor to
cheat someone out of about five grand. Or a bankster taking a 5 million dollar bonus on taxpayers dollars. Nothing that would
take down the economy, just a little "cheating" in order for them to win at all cost.
<< <i>
<< <i>
...but in the "big league" it's all about the money and winning, and if a player needs to get on first base in a particular situation to help his team win a ballgame, then ya do what ya gotta do. >>
I guess everyone who is in this camp believes that politicians, banksters, wall street, and casino houses should "do what ya gotta
do" in order to cheat the public, because it's all about winning. >>
Your analogy has a fatal flaw because of a basic fundamental difference...the discussed baseball thing is legal...the other things you mentioned are illegal.
<< <i>
Your analogy has a fatal flaw because of a basic fundamental difference...the discussed baseball thing is legal...the other things you mentioned are illegal. >>
Banksters taking a 5 million dollar bonus on taxpayer dollars is in no way illegal. It's happening all the time.
Also, I'm no expert on baseball rules, but I do know that they call balks when pitchers are trying "to deceive" the runner.
I believe that's in the rules. And when a batter fakes that he got hit, he is trying to deceive the umpire. But I also know that
it's legal for a shortstop to "deceive" who is stealing second when the ball is popped up in the infield, so there is deception
used in the game at times and it is legal.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Your analogy has a fatal flaw because of a basic fundamental difference...the discussed baseball thing is legal...the other things you mentioned are illegal. >>
Banksters taking a 5 million dollar bonus on taxpayer dollars is in no way illegal. It's happening all the time.
Also, I'm no expert on baseball rules, but I do know that they call balks when pitchers are trying "to deceive" the runner.
I believe that's in the rules. And when a batter fakes that he got hit, he is trying to deceive the umpire. But I also know that
it's legal for a shortstop to "deceive" who is stealing second when the ball is popped up in the infield, so there is deception
used in the game at times and it is legal. >>
I meant "illegal" in the sense that someone could go to prison for it. Nobody to my knowledge has ever gone to jail for breaking any rules of baseball on the field except perhaps if anyone would literally "kill the umpire"...and I hate to say it but maybe that has happened before. The non-baseball things you mentioned, people have gone to prison for those activities a number of times.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Your analogy has a fatal flaw because of a basic fundamental difference...the discussed baseball thing is legal...the other things you mentioned are illegal. >>
Banksters taking a 5 million dollar bonus on taxpayer dollars is in no way illegal. It's happening all the time.
Also, I'm no expert on baseball rules, but I do know that they call balks when pitchers are trying "to deceive" the runner.
I believe that's in the rules. And when a batter fakes that he got hit, he is trying to deceive the umpire. But I also know that
it's legal for a shortstop to "deceive" who is stealing second when the ball is popped up in the infield, so there is deception
used in the game at times and it is legal. >>
I meant "illegal" in the sense that someone could go to prison for it. Nobody to my knowledge has ever gone to jail for breaking any rules of baseball on the field except perhaps if anyone would literally "kill the umpire"...and I hate to say it but maybe that has happened before. The non-baseball things you mentioned, people have gone to prison for those activities a number of times. >>
The Black Sox scandal could be noted but I don't think that is relevant to your analogy - that was a criminal activity of fixing games, illegal in all professional team sports (except "sports" which should be classified as scripted entertainment such as wrestling and roller derby), not comparable to something such as just pretending to be hit by a pitch, etc. I could be wrong, but I don't think any player went to prison over the Black Sox scandal...I could be mistaken on that.
But I also hate refs who make calls because a player gestures that something happened. When players in the NFL gesture that there was a holding call when it never happened, it just yanks my chain.
Perhaps the "hidden ball trick" used to be frowned upon a long time ago but gradually became acceptable. I've never heard of anyone ticked off at this "deceptive" play, except of course for the player who gets tagged out. LOL
Personally, I find the "hidden ball trick", although not illegal, rather bush league. I would hate for a really important game to be decided based on such a stunt.
<< <i>I just thought of this - the "hidden ball trick"...is that "deception" that should be made illegal or is it an acceptable part of the game?...and most little leaguers are taught to do that. I guess it's a matter of perspective, and of course all games evolve over time with new rules and moral attitudes.
Perhaps the "hidden ball trick" used to be frowned upon a long time ago but gradually became acceptable. I've never heard of anyone ticked off at this "deceptive" play, except of course for the player who gets tagged out. LOL >>
I'm certain that most fans don't care about any form of deception that doesn't question ones ethics... I think people accept that defenses in football will fake a blitz, but then back off as the ball is snapped. Players in basketball will continue to drive and create contact in the hopes that a referee will claim that it was a defensive foul. We get that deception/perception is a part of the game to some extent. But to act as though a rule has been broken or a penalty has happened when it actually hasn't... That's a part of the game that needs to be eliminated. Players throwing their heads back, acting as though there has been contact, is basically cheating IMO.
<< <i>Personally, I find the "hidden ball trick", although not illegal, rather bush league. I would hate for a really important game to be decided based on such a stunt. >>
It's a trap that punishes a player for not paying attention to the game. Any ADULT player who gets caught like that had no business being in "a really important game."
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
I have to confess that when I'm playing poker, I sometimes bet like I have a big hand when I actually don't. There, I said it. Feels good to get it off my chest.
<< <i>
<< <i>I just thought of this - the "hidden ball trick"...is that "deception" that should be made illegal or is it an acceptable part of the game?...and most little leaguers are taught to do that. I guess it's a matter of perspective, and of course all games evolve over time with new rules and moral attitudes.
Perhaps the "hidden ball trick" used to be frowned upon a long time ago but gradually became acceptable. I've never heard of anyone ticked off at this "deceptive" play, except of course for the player who gets tagged out. LOL >>
I'm certain that most fans don't care about any form of deception that doesn't question ones ethics... I think people accept that defenses in football will fake a blitz, but then back off as the ball is snapped. Players in basketball will continue to drive and create contact in the hopes that a referee will claim that it was a defensive foul. We get that deception/perception is a part of the game to some extent. But to act as though a rule has been broken or a penalty has happened when it actually hasn't... That's a part of the game that needs to be eliminated. Players throwing their heads back, acting as though there has been contact, is basically cheating IMO. >>
Come on now...I don't really disagree with your points, but if ya say "Players in basketball will continue to drive and create contact in the hopes that a referee will claim that it was a defensive foul."...then ya should also include defensive players antics when tryng to draw a charging foul call.
Perhaps the solution to this in baseball, because I agree that the antics could potentially get out of hand at times, would be for an umpire to have the discretion to call a player out, if the umpire feels the player is being frivolous. Just my one cent suggestion.
<< <i>Come on now...I don't really disagree with your points, but if ya say "Players in basketball will continue to drive and create contact in the hopes that a referee will claim that it was a defensive foul."...then ya should also include defensive players antics when tryng to draw a charging foul call.
Perhaps the solution to this in baseball, because I agree that the antics could potentially get out of hand at times, would be for an umpire to have the discretion to call a player out, if the umpire feels the player is being frivolous. Just my one cent suggestion. >>
Sure, many things like that should be included. I guess my statement of "Players throwing their heads back, acting as though there has been contact, is basically cheating IMO" was intended to include that behavior, as well. In hockey, they have the diving/embellishment rule in place to cover instances in which there is contact, but a player attempts to "sell the foul". If they did something similar in all sports, I suspect you would see less of this. Sadly, hockey rarely calls it anymore. They really only enforced it the first year it was in effect. It's still a rule in place that's called occasionally, just not as frequently as it was the first year it was implemented. I just get so sick of guys gesturing for the refs to make a call in a certain instance. Especially when the ref actually obliges them after what seems like it was an afterthought to them. I get tired of seeing players trick refs all the time. It simply makes the refs look foolish and, in some instances, less likely to make a crucial call later when it's needed.
People comparing it to a bluff in poker are not getting the point. In that situation, you're attempting to convince an opponent that you're doing something that's within the rules. A bluff is relative anyways, as sometimes people end up "bluffing" with the best hand. Hitting a player with a baseball penalizes the offending team by awarding first base to the player that was hit. Hitting a player with a baseball is against the rules. So if you act like the other team broke the rules as Jeter did, that act should be punishable both ways. If the umpire thinks he was faking it or embellishing it, he should immediately be called out or even thrown out. Fines should also be considered as they are when it's also deemed that a pitcher hit a batter intentionally.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Come on now...I don't really disagree with your points, but if ya say "Players in basketball will continue to drive and create contact in the hopes that a referee will claim that it was a defensive foul."...then ya should also include defensive players antics when tryng to draw a charging foul call.
Perhaps the solution to this in baseball, because I agree that the antics could potentially get out of hand at times, would be for an umpire to have the discretion to call a player out, if the umpire feels the player is being frivolous. Just my one cent suggestion. >>
Sure, many things like that should be included. I guess my statement of "Players throwing their heads back, acting as though there has been contact, is basically cheating IMO" was intended to include that behavior, as well. In hockey, they have the diving/embellishment rule in place to cover instances in which there is contact, but a player attempts to "sell the foul". If they did something similar in all sports, I suspect you would see less of this. Sadly, hockey rarely calls it anymore. They really only enforced it the first year it was in effect. It's still a rule in place that's called occasionally, just not as frequently as it was the first year it was implemented. I just get so sick of guys gesturing for the refs to make a call in a certain instance. Especially when the ref actually obliges them after what seems like it was an afterthought to them. I get tired of seeing players trick refs all the time. It simply makes the refs look foolish and, in some instances, less likely to make a crucial call later when it's needed.
People comparing it to a bluff in poker are not getting the point. In that situation, you're attempting to convince an opponent that you're doing something that's within the rules. A bluff is relative anyways, as sometimes people end up "bluffing" with the best hand. Hitting a player with a baseball penalizes the offending team by awarding first base to the player that was hit. Hitting a player with a baseball is against the rules. So if you act like the other team broke the rules as Jeter did, that act should be punishable both ways. If the umpire thinks he was faking it or embellishing it, he should immediately be called out or even thrown out. Fines should also be considered as they are when it's also deemed that a pitcher hit a batter intentionally. >>
If I disagree with your point, it doesn't mean I don't get it. My point is that deception is part of the game. It's part of most games. And it's a big part of what makes a lot of games fun. If you disagree, that's fine. To each his own.
to be true to their sport. I don't think we want our sports to become like european soccer, where many players are faking fouls all
over the pitch to get their team the advantage.
<< <i>If I disagree with your point, it doesn't mean I don't get it. My point is that deception is part of the game. It's part of most games. And it's a big part of what makes a lot of games fun. If you disagree, that's fine. To each his own. >>
I simply feel it's something that the game/s would be better without. Nothing nauseates me more than seeing a punter in football fall every time he kicks the ball and a player from the opposing team is somewhere in the vicinity. The problem with players diving got so bad in hockey that they finally made the rule against diving/embellishment. Players in basketball flop all the time. I can rarely watch a game anymore. You'd swear that Allen Iverson was playing half of each game in a washing machine with all of the flopping around that he does. All these acts do is slow down the game anyways
Framing is slightly different. There's no rule that says that a catcher can't move his hand around after receiving the pitch and there's no rules against a pitcher throwing strikes or balls, so it's really up to the umpire to decide if the original location was good enough to be a strike or not. Obviously his intent is to deceive the umpire but no rules are being broken. There are rules against hitting a batter with a pitch, so a player acting as if he's been hit should also be against the rules. Does that not make sense? Maybe I've talked myself in circles...
In the end, deception isn't a part of the game IMO. It's become common and often accepted, but that doesn't make it a part of the game. I suspect most people would like to think that the best team wins, not the best actors. But, as you say, to each his own.
<< <i>Framing is not any different because using your logic, there are rules about what a strike is or isn't and the catcher is trying to get the umpire to call something that did not necessarily happen. Exactly the same as a flopper, diver, or a batter pretending to be hit by a pitch. >>
To a degree... Strikes and balls are really judgment calls. Getting hit by a pitch is not. You either did or you didn't. Until they start using electronics to determine balls and strikes, there will never be a way to perfectly call them correctly. Framing is something that is nearly impossible to monitor. A catcher usually moves his mitt across the zone to catch a ball. Even if they wanted to, they could almost never keep their mitt in the exact place that the ball was received. Especially when you factor in momentum and pitch velocity. Further, the catcher almost always naturally brings his mitt back to center to take the ball with his throwing hand and toss is back to the pitcher. They do this sometimes very quickly. I guess you could try to create a rule that would ban "framing", but it would be nearly impossible to determine intent and thus would rarely be enforced. I think it's similar to the diving rule in hockey. Unless it's blatantly obvious, they wont call it and even then they sometimes still wont.
<< <i>Getting hit by a pitch is a judgment call as well. It's true that one gets hit by a pitch or not. It's up to the umpire's judgment to determine whether it happened or not. It's also true that a ball is either a strike or it isn't. The umpire calls it based on his judgment, which may be right or wrong but the strike zone is what it is. They are suppose to call it based on where is crossed the plate, not where the catcher frames it, though I'm sure they're influenced by this at times. >>
I don't disagree... Again, they could try to make a rule banning the catchers from attempting to do it, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce. There's too many variables to consider and, even then, you have to be able to prove intent. We could go back and fourth discussing points but, as many know on here, I don't even like baseball at all and really can't believe I've even talked about it on this post for this long.