An arbitrator has ruled that Mr Selig overstepped his bounds, isn't Selig the Commissioner, with his suspension of LHP Ken Rogers--- great fun isnt it--are the prisoners loose and running the prison?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
Texan
I personally don't care what the cameraman's motives were or were not. If Rogers was baited ... does that excuse getting physical and assaulting the baiter? Is that something we should tell our sons ... that under similar circumstances it is okay to assault someone, to be physical with them? That certainly isn't anything I would ever want my son to emulate and is completely contrary to the lessons we taught him.
quote:Originally posted by ozzir:
Time to think for yourselves people.
quote:The point is that the Commissioner set the penalty--who are the others stepping in
quote:Arbitrator Shyam Das also ruled Tuesday that Rogers' $50,000 fine will be converted to a charitable contribution. The ruling followed a hearing Monday in Chicago.....
As part of the ruling, Das said the games Rogers missed could be taken into account if the pitcher falls short of any incentive clauses in his contract.
Union general counsel Michael Weiner said Das made an "expedited ruling" because Rogers' suspension was in effect. The union originally appealed the penalty to Selig, then filed a grievance and argued that the commissioner broke precedent.
In recent times, baseball disciplinarian Bob Watson imposed penalties and another official in the commissioner's office heard the appeals. In Rogers' case, Selig both issued the penalty and heard the appeal.
quote:Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
Texan ...
Granted, you did not say whether or not you thought Rogers was correct. However, I do believe ... based on your comment about the cameraman's alleged motive and coupled with your statement that "Based on that, I would not impose a long suspension." ... that you feel Rogers was not totally INcorrect in his actions, and therefore should be given some consideration in his punishment because his victim "started it".
quote:Originally posted by Bighit15:
I don't think that it is fair that every time Ozzir posts, he is attacked personally. It is not fair and he is entitled to voice his opinion whether I agree with him or not. As long as he doesn't make it personal, the other posters should not try to bait him. If moderator's don't like his posts, they should delete them, not hurl insults and personal attacks towards ones credibility.
quote:My guess is - either he learns to be civil - or he puts his helmet on and takes the hits.
quote:Then delete it--arent you a moderator?
TRhit
quote:Until then, I guess I won't kick myself in the a$$ too hard for reading and interpreting your post so imperfectly. I swear it is getting to be (on this site) that other than a few select posters, people can't misread something or infer or unintentionally misinterpret postings anymore without getting slammed and having sarcastics remarks thrown at them. And those select few who can make mistakes always manage to have a "support system" waiting in the wings to defend them as tho no one else is entitled to an opinion that differs. Besides putting "disclaimers" like JMHO on our messages now, are we going to have to close our posts with something like JMIOWYWAIR (JustMyInterpretationOfWhatYouWroteAndIRead)?
quote:Originally posted by Bighit15:
If moderator's (sic) don't like his posts, they should delete them
quote:No they should not, unless the post violates the acknowledged 'rules of engagement' for these boards.
quote:We expressly reserve the right to deny authorization to any person at any time, for any reason, as well as to delete in its entirety any post or link to material which we, in our sole discretion, deem to be offensive to the sensibilities of ordinary persons, or which might subject us to legal liability.
quote:Originally posted by Iscream:quote:Originally posted by Bighit15:
If moderator's (sic) don't like his posts, they should delete them
No they should not, unless the post violates the acknowledged 'rules of engagement' for these boards.
quote:In light of some of the other posts on this thread, I will add the following disclaimer to my comments:
The preceding message was brought to you by OUBsbMom and is in no way meant to flame, criticize, cajole, harrass, or offend anyone