A double standard?

by user BMetts

I don't know if anyone watched last Thursday's game between the New York Mets and Washington Nationals, but watching as an unbiased observer, I think the Nats got completely screwed.

Here's the situation, for those who don't know: Pedro Martinez, well known for his intimidating fastball, struck three batters in the first five innings of the game. The last time, Jose Guillen, who has been struck by Pedro five times now in his career, got fed up with it and had to be restrained by the umpire. Note that the Mets dugout had not been warned up to this point, and STILL wasn't warned until after Pedro was out of the game and another Mets picther struck yet another Nats batter in the seventh inning.

At this point both dugouts were warned, and in the 8th inning Nats reliever Felix Rodriguez hit Paul Lo Duca with a pitch and was promptly thrown out of the game (despite this being the first batter hit by a Nationals pitcher all night). Of course, Nationals manager Frank Robinson was rightly livid at this point, and plead his case to the umpires to no avail.

Punishments for this incident were handed out yesterday, according to ESPN.com: "Washington reliever Felix Rodriguez was suspended for three games and Nationals manager Frank Robinson for one for their roles in last week's game against the New York Mets in which five batters were hit by pitches...Rodriguez and Robinson also were fined, as was outfielder Jose Guillen." [1]

So let me get this straight: The Mets hit a total of 4 batters, the Nationals hit 1, and the Mets don't have a single person ejected, fined or suspended while the Nationals get all the punishment? Sounds like a travesty to me, and something I would be quite upset about if I were a member of that organization.

Date

Mon 04/10/06, 11:03 am EST <pageTools></pageTools>

DNLLegend

1314 days ago

Score 0

I'm a Mets fan, and I don't really agree with how things turned out, but it's not a travesty. You're also slightly factually incorrect -- the warning came down when Pedro hit Guillen the second time.

That said, Duaner Sanchez plunked someone. I'm not sure who it was, but there was a plunking to be had. No one argued when Sanchez wasn't ejected, because it is likely that the HBP was unintentional. The ump has discretion to decide whether to eject, and decided that given that it was likely an accident, no need to eject. <p> When Felix hit Paul, the ump oddly thought it was intentional, and out came the hooks. The suspensions follow from that, basically per rule. I agree, though, that they shouldn't have been ejected; it's clear that Rodriguez did nothing worse than Sanchez. <p> Where I disagree with you? The problem isn't that the Mets weren't ejected -- it's that the Nats were. Had they not been, there's no problems.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

1314 days ago

Score -1

Okay, thanks for clearing things up. I suppose I jumped to some assumptions in my post, but nonetheless, it was just an odd thing to watch, and even the commentators seemed to be in disbelief of what was going on.

Permalink | Reply

BMettsSoccer Kid

1314 days ago

Score -2

Oops, forgot to log in. I posted the above.

Permalink | Reply

DNLLegend

1314 days ago

Score 2

Your underlying premise is sound -- the fact is that this whole warning system leads to the reaction you had. Why should an ump have *any* discretion once a warning is given? Answer: Because we don't want the inside of the plate taken away. But if that's the case, why bother giving warnings?

Permalink | Reply

EnyboDiv-I Stud

1314 days ago

Score 1

I gotta tell you I think warnings are fine. After a warning is given, if someone like Pedro, who has great control, throws one high and inside, he should be tossed. If some hot shot rookie lets a curveball get away from him, those are two completely different intentions, whence why the ump needs to use discretion. I didn't see Rodriguez's plunking so I have no idea if it was intentional, but the umps obviously thought it was.

Permalink | Reply

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

1314 days ago

Score 0

I was at the game and I think you are a little off. The thing about Pedro is that he wasn't trying to hit anyone. The fact that he hit Guillen twice is no great surprise. Guillen crowds the plate and does not move on an inside pitch. Any pitcher needs to pitch inside and Pedro is no excpetion. None of Pedro's hits batsmen were following a big hit or in retaliation for an opposing player to be hit or head hunting pitches. Guillen, a known hot head simply over reacted to being hit. Pedro is not going to stop pitching inside regardless of where Guillen sets up. Pedro's view is rightfully if Guillen sets up there he runs the risk of getting hit with a fastball. As for Sanchez, he hit someone in a relatively close game on a 2 strike pitch. As for Rodriguez he hit someone after the game had been blown open and with pretty obvious intent. As for Frank Robsinson, any other manager would have been thrown out the first time he stayed ont he field and argued delaying the game for 10 minutes. I have no sympathy because his reputation/elder statesman status bought him too much time anyway. Finally, your 4-1 stat is meaningless. There are lies, dan lies and statistics. The Mets hit 4 players but every one of them was or at least seemed unintentional. The Nats hit one batter and it was or at least seemed intentional. that is the story!

Permalink | Reply

ASwaffAll-American

1313 days ago

Score 0

Yeah, the umps blew it, but how long ago was that? Sour grapes, dude. Let it go.

Permalink | Reply

Eggman n3Varsity

1313 days ago

Score 0

The Mets are my NL team, and even I hate calls like that.

Permalink | Reply

BMettsSoccer Kid

1313 days ago

Score 0

ASwaff: Apparently not too long ago, seeing as they were still talking about it on ESPN Radio today. Of course, part of that is because the two teams started another series today. Here's betting Pedro gets beaned tomorrow :)

Permalink | Reply