You should work on your reading skills... the things you quoted literally say violently throwing his bat.Quote:
The apparently violent "bump":
Yes, I'm aware they refer to him violently throwing the bat. Then they say "It is NOT okay to throw a temper tantrum and physically touch someone of authority, just because you don't agree. Violence in all workplaces is not tolerated." which refers to him physically touching someone, and then in the next sentence refers to "violence in the workplace".The Lost said:You should work on your reading skills... the things you quoted literally say violently throwing his bat.Quote:
The apparently violent "bump":
I didn't see the bump either, but I have no problem with him being suspended one game for the tantrum.
Unions are gonna union and stand up for their guys. If you go and do that to your boss, you're gonna get fired.
About the only positive of what he did would be they could eventually go towards robotic strike zones, but again have fun with the union on that one.
You're trying too hard.Quote:
Yes, I'm aware they refer to him violently throwing the bat. Then they say "It is NOT okay to throw a temper tantrum and physically touch someone of authority, just because you don't agree. Violence in all workplaces is not tolerated." which refers to him physically touching someone, and then in the next sentence refers to "violence in the workplace".
Also, the umps aren't his boss, so that analogy doesn't really work. He'd be fired if he actually engaged his boss like that. They may be in a position of authority because they officiate the game, but they aren't his boss. Of course robotic strike zones would never be approved by the unions. It's about job justification to them. They'd garner a shred of sympathy if they ever held their own accountable.
Trying too hard to what? The ump union statement is ridiculous. I don't need to do anything about that.TXAggie2011 said:You're trying too hard.Quote:
Yes, I'm aware they refer to him violently throwing the bat. Then they say "It is NOT okay to throw a temper tantrum and physically touch someone of authority, just because you don't agree. Violence in all workplaces is not tolerated." which refers to him physically touching someone, and then in the next sentence refers to "violence in the workplace".
Also, the umps aren't his boss, so that analogy doesn't really work. He'd be fired if he actually engaged his boss like that. They may be in a position of authority because they officiate the game, but they aren't his boss. Of course robotic strike zones would never be approved by the unions. It's about job justification to them. They'd garner a shred of sympathy if they ever held their own accountable.
And change it to "you'd be fired if you acted like that around an authority figure at the workplace..." and the same point would be made.
Agreed.PatAg said:
Both the umpires and players would all be fired for how they act and behave in game, so that's a stupid argument anyways.
Sure.Quote:
Trying too hard to what? The ump union statement is ridiculous. I don't need to do anything about that.
Also, if I threw a fastball at a coworker's ribs, I'd be put in jail. If I started violently punching a coworker in the face, like a hockey player, I'd be put in jail. Can we agree that not all jobs have the same general guidelines of what's "acceptable" or not, especially when it comes to sports? Heck, I used to be an infantry sergeant. If I talked to my staff now the way I talked to some Private, I'd be fired in a heartbeat.
Oh, well that seems like a stretch for "trying too hard", especially when the boss/authority thing was a response to a flawed analogy someone else used. Now the ump statement certainly would fit that mold of "trying too hard".TXAggie2011 said:Sure.Quote:
Trying too hard to what? The ump union statement is ridiculous. I don't need to do anything about that.
Also, if I threw a fastball at a coworker's ribs, I'd be put in jail. If I started violently punching a coworker in the face, like a hockey player, I'd be put in jail. Can we agree that not all jobs have the same general guidelines of what's "acceptable" or not, especially when it comes to sports? Heck, I used to be an infantry sergeant. If I talked to my staff now the way I talked to some Private, I'd be fired in a heartbeat.
Working in "violent bump" and arguing about boss/authority was trying too hard.
also trueAlvarado Times said:
Machado acted like a little *****
That's how central americans behave with soccer refs too. Where the hell was the security team. I thought that dude in the hoodie was about to stab him in the back, definitely wasnt the first time he stalked someone like that.dlance said:
Love Torre's statement!
And if the umps thought THAT was workplace violence...they ain't seen *****..
dlance said:
Love Torre's statement!
And if the umps thought THAT was workplace violence...they ain't seen *****..
umpires in MLB are definitely the worst about it of all the major sportsBobby Petrino`s Neckbrace said:
We need a robot to call balls and strikes. Joe West and Angel Hernandez are completely incapable of being a) competent, and b) impartial.
The umpires in MLB continue to ruin the game and make it all about them. And the gutless Commissioner of Baseball is letting it happen on his watch.
You must not watch much NBA basketball.PatAg said:umpires in MLB are definitely the worst about it of all the major sportsBobby Petrino`s Neckbrace said:
We need a robot to call balls and strikes. Joe West and Angel Hernandez are completely incapable of being a) competent, and b) impartial.
The umpires in MLB continue to ruin the game and make it all about them. And the gutless Commissioner of Baseball is letting it happen on his watch.
wbt5845 said:
I used to be against an automated strike zone, but I'm coming over to liking the idea. Takes all subjectivity out of it.