Workman suspended for 6 games for throwing behind Longoria
- Thread starter donutogre
- Start date
Andrew said:
To say that Workman did not throw the ball there on purpose is to expose yourself as a fool.
Perhaps he let up because he didn't want to actually hurt anyone - I can't know his motivation or his specific intent - but let's not pretend he didn't throw that pitch exactly where he wanted. And as MakMan indicates, it was a fastball, not a breaking ball.
Average Reds said:
I mean, it's right there in front of you. Someone just posted it. It's not higher than his shoulders. There's no way that could have hit his head. Keep calling people idiots and fools all you want if that's all you have. It doesn't change that he clearly wasn't going to hit Longoria in the head.
Edit: For the record, I think it's pretty obvious Workman threw behind him on purpose. I was taking umbrage with your diatribe on headhunting. It's not what happened there.
Andrew said:
It was behind his head. Which is worse. (the one thing Price did right was throw at Ortiz exactly where you are "supposed to" throw at a guy. His ass, more or less).
Under the circumstances, I think its more than reasonable to conclude that Workman intentionally threw at Longoria. (he did a really shitty job of it). Do I KNOW that? No. The issue to me is Price, not Workman.
If this was a replay situation,
Nick Cafardo @nickcafardo 3s
Ortiz said MLB wants to speak to him about incident with Price next couple of days.
Ortiz said MLB wants to speak to him about incident with Price next couple of days.
joe dokes said:
I just posted a gif, and it wasn't really behind his head. It was more behind his upper back (around where the letters are). I'm not sure he could back into that pitch with his head, unless he squatted.
EDIT - Not trying to say I think Workman threw at Longoria on purpose or not (I don't know, no one here knows). I'm just pointing out it wasn't this thing that just missed his head by inches. It wasn't all that close, really.
I'm pretty certain Workman was aiming for Longoria. That said, I think it did slip as I dont think he was aiming to throw it behind his head. If Price decides to nail Papi's ass in the pouring rain where does it really end up? A suspension of Workman with nothing for Price is complete BS.
Andrew said:
Yes he would have...because the natutral reaction of a hitter is to duck and back up. EVERY player would say that the ball below and behind his head is the most dangerous one. You can argue day and night, but nothing suggests that concluding that it was intentional is a ridiculous conclusion.
Average Reds said:
Must be a long list if you just ignore everyone who points out when you say something dumb.
soxhop411 said:
Everyone but Verducci agreed the Red Sox got short changed on the exchange. Verducci defended Price as having "Done it the right way" which implies that he believes Price was right to be angry about Papi watching the fair/foul home run until it was called. So 3-1 in favor of the Sox on the panel.
Average Reds said:
I'm actually looking for a second angle now because I'm not convinced it was that close to his head. It looks a good foot (well, maybe 10 inches) away, to me.
The number is valid. I just called and voiced my concerns regarding objectivity, fairness and potential bias. Worth nothing I realize, but the complaint was taken down by someone (intern). I asked for a reply via email as well.joe dokes said:
Jaylach said:
I'm not saying it was that close - just that it was about head high. That sort of pitch has always been a major no-no.
joe dokes said:
He's not as good at throwing at hitters as Price is.Under the circumstances, he's gonna lose that argument 100 out of 100 times.
I don't disagree with you. Given the circumstances, I probably suspend Workman too. However, I also most definitely suspend Price as he hit not 1, but 2 batters. He then admitted to hitting one of them on purpose.
joe dokes said:
Yes he would have what? It's posted in this thread. You can look at it right now. That's not what happened. There's no earthly way Longoria was going to be hit in the head with that short if him squatting while backing up. I'm not saying he didn't throw behind him on purpose, as your guys keep strawmanning, I'm saying it wasn't at his head. It's not. You don't need to turn it into some moralistic hyperbole. Reality has enough to discuss.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
He's right in a way. Price DID do it the right way. He hit him in the ass. But that doesn't mean it wasn't intentional and deserving of a suspension.
Put another way, if Workman had hit Longoria in the ass ("the right way") in the 3rd inning, aren't we in the same place. (workman ejected and suspended?)
Verducci just doesn't want Price to call him a "nerd" again, so he's gonna polish his knob.
In a 2-1 game against a hated divisional opponent a second year reliever who happens to be one of our best is going to intentionally put someone on base and get thrown out because both sides had already been warned to prove a point? Talk about obtuse...Average Reds said:
ok whats the strategy here?
Appeal. Then after he pitches drop the appeal, and when they get an off day all the starters go on normal rest? or appeal and really try to get it down to 5 games?
Appeal. Then after he pitches drop the appeal, and when they get an off day all the starters go on normal rest? or appeal and really try to get it down to 5 games?
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 2m
Though Ortiz wasn't suspended, he could still be fined from Friday. Expects to hear from MLB today or tomorrow.
GJGE MLB
Though Ortiz wasn't suspended, he could still be fined from Friday. Expects to hear from MLB today or tomorrow.
GJGE MLB
OK. Under the circumstances whizzing behind his front shoulder -- which is where the ball looks like it crossed -- is close enough to what is regarded as the most dangerous type of pitch to come down on Workman. And "the ball was wet" cuts both ways here.
I agree with whoever suggested that he might not have had it in him to throw it 6 inches higher.
I agree with whoever suggested that he might not have had it in him to throw it 6 inches higher.
Between the perfect placement of the plunking itself and his comments the next day, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Price intentionally hit Ortiz. Since Price was not ejected, suspended, or even fined for it, it's basically like MLB is saying there is nothing to sanction in an overt, grudge settling HPB. Unless it's an attempted retaliation for the initial HPB, apparently. So wrong.
I could buy that. They want to make their point but they don't want to risk hurting someone to do so.NDame616 said:
Let's focus on what MLB apparently has decided:
The ump believed (based on the comments from the crew chief) that the Ortiz HBP was intentional, thus used his discretion to issue warnings. In effect, MLB is saying the the "punishment" for Price consisted of being put on notice.
Farrell, who apparently wasn't fine or suspended, was throw out for arguing that, in his own words, "the ball was taken out of our hand," meanina a chance to retaliate.
MLB is ruling, apparently, that they considered the incident closed at the time of the warning. That Farrell wasn't punished would seem to infer that MLB wasn't all that thrilled with the ejection.
The umps did not believe the Carp HBP was intentional. The Sox were steamed, of course, and Luvollo was tossed for arguing the intent of that pitch.
The Workman and 3B coach ejections were do to the intent ruling on the pitch to Longoria -- which to the umps, and to MLB, was the only intentional action after the Ortiz HBP.
In essence, MLB made its ruling in regards only to the on-field happening AFTER in its mind the umpires had issued the initial warning.
You can hate it all you want. But it all turns on the HP ump decision to issue a warning to Price instead of immediate ejection. There's no reason in their minds to punish Price, given their thought process.
The ump believed (based on the comments from the crew chief) that the Ortiz HBP was intentional, thus used his discretion to issue warnings. In effect, MLB is saying the the "punishment" for Price consisted of being put on notice.
Farrell, who apparently wasn't fine or suspended, was throw out for arguing that, in his own words, "the ball was taken out of our hand," meanina a chance to retaliate.
MLB is ruling, apparently, that they considered the incident closed at the time of the warning. That Farrell wasn't punished would seem to infer that MLB wasn't all that thrilled with the ejection.
The umps did not believe the Carp HBP was intentional. The Sox were steamed, of course, and Luvollo was tossed for arguing the intent of that pitch.
The Workman and 3B coach ejections were do to the intent ruling on the pitch to Longoria -- which to the umps, and to MLB, was the only intentional action after the Ortiz HBP.
In essence, MLB made its ruling in regards only to the on-field happening AFTER in its mind the umpires had issued the initial warning.
You can hate it all you want. But it all turns on the HP ump decision to issue a warning to Price instead of immediate ejection. There's no reason in their minds to punish Price, given their thought process.
Thanks so much for providing this information. I called, and got the impression that I was heard. I emphasized that for fans it's important to believe in the fairness and impartiality of the umpires and the commissioner's office, and that right now my belief has been shaken. Yes, who cares, but at least it was something I could do.joe dokes said:
Isn't there some sort of syndrome where a victim bonds with his attacker?garlan5 said:
I what universe is this fair? The worst brawl in baseball this season (Pirates Brewers) only netted a 3 game suspension for Carlos Gomez. I can't think of any ruling more egregious than this one. Even a child can understand this.