If you were trying to hit the umpire why would you throw a curveball to a right handed batter from a right handed pitcher with the umpire standing behind the catcher's left shoulder. That is ABSOLUTELY the hardest possible combination to get to the umpire's head. The easiest way to hit the umpire, if you were trying, would be to do it with a left handed batter at the plate. That way the batter is not in the line of a right handed pitcher, the umpire will be looking over the catcher's right shoulder making the line to the umpire the most open and a fast ball could be thrown. It makes no sense to do it the way it is claimed.
posted by Hillerby at 10:46 AM on June 22
I don't think anyone can say for sure the pitcher intentionally threw at the umpire and the catcher ducked on purpose. It will be very hard to prove in court. I would like to find out if the umpire had any history of incidents with players or coaches that stand out from the norm. If I was defending these players in court I would ask these questions to the jury. Why would a pitcher throw a curveball if he was trying to hit the umpire, especially considering the pitcher is right handed facing a right handed batter which is the hardest possible way to hit the umpire as the batter is in the way. Also I would show that the curve ball, which might not have curved as much as hoped, appears to either hit the helmet (not known for sure) or come close to the batters head causing him to duck which could have caused the catcher to think the ball was going to glance off and possibly hit him, causing him to duck. If you look at the video the catcher is still trying to catch the ball, and is on his knees as you would expecting a curveball to prevent it from getting by with a runner on base, just before it gets close to the helmet. I've seen catchers duck and turn their heads fearing getting struck with balls that are not over the plate. It would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the catcher intentionally ducked with plans to hit the umpire. The curve ball and close location to the batters head makes this a reasonable explanation. The catcher saying what he did makes sense if he was expecting a curve that he thought could have hit the batters head and then him. Another item of doubt is the pitcher is worried about the runner, looking back at him, which makes no sense if he is going to hit the umpire with the pitch. For the umpire to get an attorney over this makes me wonder about his attitude as well. If this goes to trial, only the attorneys will make money. Both sides will lose money. IMHO
posted by Hillerby at 09:53 AM on June 19
Didn't seem to bother him walking up the steps. The limp could have been simply the cast causing a different footing.
posted by Hillerby at 04:01 AM on January 22
"...I know that most black parents in America beat or slap their kids when white parents don't. Scars, I hope admitting the problem is a big first step for you. Good luck in your racial bias recovery. We're pulling for you." Tell that to DL Hugely, the black comedian, who on the Tonight Show tonight said basically the same thing. Go to NBC.com and you can view the show and see what he said.
posted by Hillerby at 02:21 AM on January 18
I know first hand about being charged by a wife planning to divorce. My boys were watching TV and not responding to my calls, so I flicked them with my finger on their head to get their attention. When arguing with my wife a bubble flew out of my mouth and landed on her face. She told the police I hit the kids on the head and spit in her face, far from the truth. When she wanted a divorce she filed a restraining order claiming my kids were afraid of me, I was abusive. No questions or facts asked of me or anyone yet a restraining order was ordered and I was kept from seeing my kids for nearly a year (I was not to come within 1000ft). She claimed I was abusive. She claimed I drank heavily. She claimed I did drugs. I was guilty in the courts eyes it seems as I had to prove myself innocent of every charge. I had to go through anger management. The Dr. running it said what happened to me and what I had to do to prove my innocence should have made me angry. He said the pendulum has swung too far (trying to protect the women) and needs to be adjusted. I had to go through Psychological evaluation and was tested every possible way. The result was I was a normal person no matter how hard these tests try to show anger, abusive tendencies etc. It also said the kids told the Dr. on their own they weren't afraid of me but it couldn't be admitted as evidence. I passed the drug test, even though the person cutting my hair for the test cut so much I had to drastically cut the rest to match. I passed the drinking test as they called me at 5AM Sunday morning to come in and be tested. My wife claimed many wine bottles were in my garbage. She knew I collect recycles for my kids to have money for them to spend themselves. She claimed my kids were afraid of me. My kids couldn't testify because they were too young (under 12) and she knew it. The tried to write a letter to the judge saying how they felt, but we couldn't get the kids to testify, write a letter or meet with the judge in his chambers. I gradually got the 1000ft limit reduced and then got my kids back again nearly a year, and over $100,000 in attorney fees and testing costs later. The courts say that we are supposed to think of the kids well being first, but they took their college tuition away by allowing these false claims to be basically the truth and I had to prove them wrong. Never been arrested, never a drunk driving, no history of abuse married 22 years but I was the person who was constantly defending myself. And all this from a woman who got a job by performing the Monica Lewinsky , except she didn' t get any on her dress (you can guess why). I can see very similar situations in the story. Many women and their women attorneys know what they can do by accusing and acting sweet in court, making the man look bad. And if he gets mad from what is happening, she will say "see what I mean". There is a law in many states that says a person can't claim abuse, when there is no history of abuse and no incidents. THEY have to prove it, not the other person trying to continually defend themselves from charges. No restraining orders without at least one history of facts and documented incident. It seems those who charge first are believed and the person charged has to prove himself innocent. Not what our system is supposed to be. I could only imagine what it must have been for an African American in the south many years ago and charged by a white person. He had no chance. We have to change the laws that allow this to happen. Notice we didn't hear from the child. They try to protect them to the detriment of hearing the truth from the one affected. These kids can be questioned in school when an incident happens, but not in court when serious charges are brought. Ridiculous. IMHO
posted by Hillerby at 01:37 AM on January 18
Copyright © 2014 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.