Let the punishment fit...

by baseballgirl on Dec 23, 2006 9:35 AM PST in News

In the wake of the punishments handed out by the NBA in the well-publicized brawl last week, I noticed a few things about basketball that just make sense. A player does something inexorably stupid, like throwing a punch in the middle of a game, and he is immediately handed a suspension; in this case, 15 games. If he, by some chance, would like to appeal--with what defense I can't imagine--he is more than able to, but regardless, his punishment begins immediately. Carmelo Anthony hit another player during a game. He is not eligible to play until January 20th unless his suspension is reduced. Period.

Contrast this with MLB. Who can forget the infamous Roberto Alomar, whose career was forever marred by when he spit at an umpire? The problem wasn't so much Alomar's actions (inexcusable and atrocious as they were), but rather the lack of a real punishment handed down by the governing body of the league, who has been--and should be--harshly criticized for allowing ball players to pick their own convenient times to serve their suspensions.

As you may remember, back in 1996, the Orioles were battling for a Wild Card spot during the last few games of the season when the incident occurred. Alomar was handed a five game suspension, which applied to regular season games. As every player is wont to do (unless they would like to take a four-day break and have Melhuse catch), Alomar appealed, played a huge role in the Orioles successful bid for the Wild Card, and due to the rules of the suspension, was allowed in the playoffs, thus postponing his suspension to the next season, where five games in April wouldn't even put a dent in the overall team outcome.

And don't even get me started on pitchers' suspensions, who basically just shuffle around their starts to accommodate their 'punishment'.

So what is it with MLB's inability to rein in its players? Why can't the punishment fit the crime in a timely manner? And how is Kenny Rogers not in stocks somewhere on a deserted island?

I'm kidding with the last one.

Kind of.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yet in contrast...

It seems that MLB has a better handle on steroids-related suspensions than it does for fracases on the field. Aside from the Rafael Palmeiro disaster, where he was celebrated for 3,000 hits and 500 homers, only to be suspended the following week, it seems we find out about these things immediately before the suspension (see: Ryan Franklin, Alex Sanchez, etc.)

MLB seems like a dinosaur when it comes to the short suspensions and delays through appeal. It seems players can choose to be suspended against teams that are easier to beat, and you're right, pitcher suspensions are a joke.

While I can't blame Bud Selig for all of it, I'd like to. This was an issue before his reign of wimpiness started. A major contribution is that the players' union is the strongest in the world. You simply can't get any kind of consessions from them without threat of a strike.

More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/

by louismg on Dec 23, 2006 10:00 AM PST reply actions

BBG....

Its over and I'm sad. :(

"Schleep is for babies. Gamers play all night." Nintendo Fanactic

by capper3 on Dec 23, 2006 10:30 AM PST reply actions

Punishment

But Santa knows if they have been naughty or nice so it all evens out in the end.

by Larry E on Dec 23, 2006 10:59 AM PST reply actions

I may be in the minority,

but athletes getting involved in a fracas does not bother me very much. Unless of course someone goes after a fan and ends up hitting the "wrong" fan. But that's why they have laws. Let the athlete or the offending fan face the legal system for their actions. Not to mention the civil litigation component of such actions.

I remember years ago when a Royals player (back when they were a decent team) slid hard into a Yankee's thirdbaseman. The thirdbaseman kicked him in the head, which resulted in a full on brawl. After the umpires restored order, the player took his base and play resumed as if nothing had happened. No one was even ejected from the game, nor were any suspensions imposed.

If just doesn't bother me if players become involved in the occassional scuffle. I don't endorse it, but I understand that emotions can run high in high stakes (or low stakes) competition. An occasional physical confrontation is inevitable.

Hell, for that matter, here in the US we will put two grown men in a ring to trade blows with each other. The very thing that so many people disdain, we call a sporting "event". I won't watch boxing or the UFC or any of the other gladiator sports. I don't agree with violence for the sake of violence alone.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 23, 2006 11:00 AM PST reply actions

Word.

by Philip Christy on Dec 23, 2006 11:24 AM PST up reply actions

I agree with everything you said...

except for the UFC and boxing. Competitive fighting isn't at all about violence for violence sake. There's a big difference between a street fight and two grown individuals testing each others' guts and physical abilities in the ring. I personally think segments of our culture have grown self-righteous on the topic of fighting in sports. The athletes pay their fines and when appropriate pay the legal penalties for losing their cool on the playing field. That should be as far as it goes, in my opinion.

by LD on Dec 23, 2006 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

Yes, we have a culture that revils

in reviling others for their transgressions. I find it ironic when someone violates the pc views currently in vogue and the offended group demands an apology. Which is almost never good enough. The culprit must be eviscerated in the public arena to the satisfaction of the offended group. Truth be told, they're not interested in an apology so much as they are in an old fashioned crucifixion in a public arena.

I know that some people see a distiction in a street brawl as opposed to measured physical combat in a ring. I just don't agree with it. I am not passing judgement on those who participate, but I am also not willing to support it with my finances. To me it smacks of an old fashioned gladiatorial contest. The idea is to inflict injury on your opponent until he/she can no longer continue. I get no pleasure out of such contests.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 23, 2006 5:18 PM PST up reply actions

well said

I agree with every word. The NBA's overraction to stuff like this is one of the big reasons I've lost interest in the league. Once Stern is gone I might be back. Until then, Arena Football and Hockey will just have to hold me between the NFL and MLB.

by sactownbull on Dec 26, 2006 9:24 AM PST up reply actions

Fines/suspensions

On the opposite end of MLB is NFL, where looking at the quarterback funny merits a fine and suspension.

HOW 'BOUT THEM COWBOYS?!?!

by JLaff on Dec 23, 2006 11:03 AM PST reply actions

Actually, that's a good point...

I thought they were kidding when they called 'taunting' on a player. I can't imagine saying that with a straight face, as a ref...

;)

Ho hum. Just another day for the OAKLAND ATHLETICS OF AWESOME! ~Kyli

by baseballgirl on Dec 23, 2006 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

NFL

The NFL is the perfect example of a sports dictatorship. It's a socialist dictatorship: everyone is equal but nobody has as much as they want. Salaries totally controlled, no guaranteed money. Players have ZERO power there. Supposedly, they have harsher drug tests but we all know that's not true.

Everyone knows you don't mess with the NFL and if you are a player, you don't mess with the commissioner. Remember when Manning wasn't allowed to wear black shoes (or whatever it was) to honor Johnny Unitas? Or when Plummer couldn't honor Pat Tillman? The NFL preaches pure conformity ... it's a little scary but the league does get the job done. It works, but then again, so did Stalinist Russia ...

by Crosbino on Dec 23, 2006 11:16 AM PST up reply actions

True

Which is why I kinda like Chad Johnson. He's all flash, but he can back it up with skill, and he's not throwing teammates under the bus like TO.

The uniform police are savage and annoying, but even worse is the protection given to the quarterback. Yeah, I know that he needs to be protected, but half of the roughing the passer calls and fines given out are BS. QBs are getting to be like punters now, where they love to take a fall at the very slightest contact to draw a penalty. It's sickening, just let them play!

HOW 'BOUT THEM COWBOYS?!?!

by JLaff on Dec 23, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions

And to defend TO ...

This came up while discussing this with a Raider fan. As selfish as TO may seem, TO does what he considers to be in his best interests. If he thinks people are underestimating him, or it's a contract year and he has something to prove, he'll go all out to demonstrate that he's still a premier receiver. I can appreciate the desire to do that, even if it's not a constant drive and he has to have his buttons pushed.

On the far end of the spectrum from Eight-Five and TO is Randy Moss. His lack of effort this year truly disgusts me (and I'm not even a Raider fan). His unwillingness to go after any passes not thrown directly at his numbers (and even then, it's not a guarantee he'll catch those) or to step up and try to win games as long as the ball is thrown in his direction sets a very bad example to any kids that might still idolize him. Time and time again, broadcasters and analysts have pointed out this deficiency in his game this season, and I hope for the Raiders' sake, they find a way to not have him back next year. His performance this year has been the antithesis to a Jerry Rice.

by Rickeyfan on Dec 24, 2006 11:28 PM PST up reply actions

Seriously?

A fine maybe...but who is the last NFL to get suspension that wa snot 100% warranted. The league is built on QB's....guys taking late hits need to be fined to set a precedent..and the fines are never huge anyway, just enough to send a message....but a suspension? That doesnt happen often at all for a hit..it has to be VERY dirty.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Dec 25, 2006 9:23 PM PST up reply actions

You're dealing with 2 very different leagues

Baseball is run by the players and has been since the 1970s. The asylum is truly run by the inmates here and nothing is going to change that. The appeal rules are idiotic, but the players union would cry innocent until proven guilty and that every player is entitled to an appeal.

Basketball is run by David Stern and only by David Stern. The players have NO power at all. Much more of a dictatorship, which is what sports likely need. (Not that it's curbing the trouble over there ...)

You're totally right: the baseball suspension rules are terrible, but I don't think they're going to change anytime soon.

by Crosbino on Dec 23, 2006 11:13 AM PST reply actions

Crosbino is dead on

Baseballgirl is too young to remember this, but back in the mid-70s the pendulum swung over to the players' side at the time they won free-agency. The owners unwittingly gave away the farm at that time. The players have been in control ever since.

Basketball, football, and now ice hockey have real salary caps that allow at least the possibility of real competitive balance. Competitive balance is a joke in MLB.

Baseball players and their agents don't want to limit the owners' willingess to spend uncomprehensible amounts of money on medicore talent. Therefore, they've got this weak salary cap that allows teams like the Yankees and Red Sox to pay a minor penalty for having a payroll four times greater than some of the other teams (like the A's).

The same power that grants the players the ability to thwart a hard salary cap allows them to misbehave with near impunity. How long did it take the owners to do something about steroids? Remember the weak penalties that MLB first put in place before they finally increased them (after being threatened by the federal government)? The owners don't want to upset the players (or jeopardize their cash flow).

As idiotic as the owners collectively seem most of the time, it's hard to blame them entirely. The time they tried to get their spending under control during the Ueberroth administration they were hit with a collusion charge. The owners had to compensate those players who were deemed to have been adversely affected by this supposed collusion.

Oh well, at least we haven't had a strike or lockout in awhile.

"The bigger the game, the better he pitched."

by Catfish27 on Dec 24, 2006 10:34 PM PST up reply actions

OK, baseballgirl, now I'm totally confused

Having sent you an unrequited phone call AND email several days ago on an important matter, I assumed you were dead. Now it appears you are, at worst, day to day. Which, granted, is about the same if you're an A's fan. But still. Hmm...

<sigh>

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 23, 2006 12:40 PM PST reply actions

I did try to call you!!!

I just got internet back & I'll look up your alternate phone number.

But you can't kill me. :)

Ho hum. Just another day for the OAKLAND ATHLETICS OF AWESOME! ~Kyli

by baseballgirl on Dec 23, 2006 2:32 PM PST up reply actions

-5 points

reign -noun
1. the period during which a sovereign occupies the throne.

rein -noun
1. Often, reins. a leather strap, fastened to each end of the bit of a bridle, by which the rider or driver controls a horse or other animal by pulling so as to exert pressure on the bit.

As a matter of fact, no, I don't have any friends.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Dec 23, 2006 2:42 PM PST reply actions

<sticks tongue out>

Megrry Chrigstmas! ;)

Ho hum. Just another day for the OAKLAND ATHLETICS OF AWESOME! ~Kyli

by baseballgirl on Dec 23, 2006 3:04 PM PST up reply actions

even more so..

as far as I know, basketball players get paid per game, right? so, if they are suspended, they dont get paid. (of course, thats neither here nor there for most of them). Baseball players, on the other hand, get paid monthly, and are paid the same amount regardless of suspension. or do they?

i like bench clearers, regardless. get me fired up..

by digsthelongball on Dec 23, 2006 3:33 PM PST reply actions

That's the beauty of baseball brawls.

When an incident occurs, it almost never goes beyond a mass rush onto the field, then 5 minutes of preening and posturing by the players. Occassionally someone will get shoved and then retaliation will occur. Which usually consists of a bearhug. It's like the players have an innate understanding that the last thing in the world they want to do is break a hand on someones skull. Such an injury may jeapordize their next free agent signing....and who wants to run that kind of risk, no matter the offense?

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 23, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions

Alomar's punishment was a joke

I remember when this happened and was stunned that he got such as timid punishment. There are just certain things that are unacceptable -- spitting on an umpire is one of them. While some might think it too much, he should have been banned for much longer than 5 games the next season. But to an earlier poster's point, the MLBPA is incredibly powerful and would never allow punishment like that handed out by the NBA.

I do agree that fights between players don't warrant a suspension per se. Settle it on the field. Of course, I'm also one of those that thinks there's nothing wrong with brushback pitches and retaliation. Baseball's become way too soft with "warnings" and automatic ejections. I think it was at the 16-0 pounding of the Giants in 2005 when Nick Swisher got a tight, inside pitch that knocked him down and instead of yelling or complaining, he got up, dusted off and drove the next pitch over the wall for a 3-run homer. That's the way to settle things.....

by sharks22 on Dec 24, 2006 12:24 PM PST reply actions

Roberto Alomar

It's true that a possible first ballot inductee, Roberto Alomar, instead guaranteed his place in the Hall of Infamy in 1996 when he spit on umpire John Hirschbeck. But what actually explains Alomar's explosion? A disputed called strike and Alomar's over-reaction, as is the popular version of events? Or did Hirschbeck first address Alomar in a sexually demeaning and highly provocative manner? According to veteran umpire Jim Evans, he "may have." I heard Evans, the crew chief that day, on a radio interview a couple of seasons later, and "may have" were his words . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 25, 2006 10:25 AM PST reply actions