http://www.dailypress.com/spor...nied,0,4022286.story
LSU bound senior gets ejected from district championship game and will be suspended for first round of regional play.
interesting story
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Umpires are awesome. Umpire officers are even MORE awesome.
Good call fellas (sic)
Good call fellas (sic)
Its the end of the season and Cave is a senior so he knows the rules. Its unfortunate that it had happened because I was looking forward to seeing him play Monday but I understand he has to be punished.
i would not dispute the rule just how it was enforced. Umpire had alot of options and chose the worst one.
But while i am at it....why is this a rule? cant wear a necklace that is tucked in your shirt? what s the concern?
But while i am at it....why is this a rule? cant wear a necklace that is tucked in your shirt? what s the concern?
It would appear that Mr Cave made a gross miscalculation. He knew it was wrong, was asked to take the jewelry off TWICE, but didn't. He only has himself to blame. It is unfortunate that he was not thinking about his team.
Can I ask if this was 'bling' type of jewelry or the Phiten type?
quote:Originally posted by fenwaysouth:
It would appear that Mr Cave made a gross miscalculation. He knew it was wrong, was asked to take the jewelry off TWICE, but didn't. He only has himself to blame. It is unfortunate that he was not thinking about his team.
Agreed. It's unfortunate. He's young. Hopefully he's learned a lesson that he's not bigger than the game.
The coach's comments were a bit revealing. When he described how umpires deal with the jewelry issue in other games, he basically admitted that players wore something unauthorized at games all season long and umpires had to correct players all the time.
Come on, Coach. You're twenty five games into the season and you still haven't taught your players how to dress for the game?
When I officiated football, it was the same thing. Certain coaches would engage in a little game of chicken every Friday night to try to undermine the officials' authority or resolve. Whether it was the strings tied around the biceps or extra tape or tinted face masks, there were some coaches who habitually let their players wear unauthorized items.
If they truly wanted their players to comply with the rules, they would fix the problem after the first pre-season scrimmage. There were plenty of coaches (usually on the better coached, more disciplined, more successful programs) whose players were always legally equipped.
However, there was a sizable minority that made uniform rules part of their weekly test of will with the zebras. They seemed to think, "If he won't enforce this little rule, maybe I can sneak a couple extra coaches into the box. If that doesn't get me a sideline warning, maybe I can get away with standing on the field. If I can stand on the field, I can work the sideline official a little harder and maybe get the call I want later in the game." They keep pushing the limit, and then when they finally get a flag, they'd get indignant and accuse the official of suddenly being petty after ignoring rules all game long. And if the official does enforce the rule at the beginning of the game, the coach complains all night about how he got nickel-and-dimed from before the opening kickoff.
I don't know any of the players or coaches in this situation. But it seems to me that a coach who lets a player wear unauthorized jewelry in a district championship after umpires have enforced the rules all season long has no ground to stand on if the umpires don't handle the situation just the way he expects them to. All the coach had to do was bench one player one time in a non-district game in early March for wearing jewelry, and this incident never would have happened. Unfortunately, he chose not to handle it early. So he gets what he gets when he leaves it to the umpires to handle it late.
As far as the player's comment, "And if I'm the umpire, I don't throw out a kid in the district championship game so he can't play in the regionals for wearing a necklace," I would just turn that complaint right around. If I'm the player, I don't risk hurting my team in the district championship game by wearing unauthorized gear. Why put it in the hands of the umpire? Just wear the prescribed uniform.
Come on, Coach. You're twenty five games into the season and you still haven't taught your players how to dress for the game?
When I officiated football, it was the same thing. Certain coaches would engage in a little game of chicken every Friday night to try to undermine the officials' authority or resolve. Whether it was the strings tied around the biceps or extra tape or tinted face masks, there were some coaches who habitually let their players wear unauthorized items.
If they truly wanted their players to comply with the rules, they would fix the problem after the first pre-season scrimmage. There were plenty of coaches (usually on the better coached, more disciplined, more successful programs) whose players were always legally equipped.
However, there was a sizable minority that made uniform rules part of their weekly test of will with the zebras. They seemed to think, "If he won't enforce this little rule, maybe I can sneak a couple extra coaches into the box. If that doesn't get me a sideline warning, maybe I can get away with standing on the field. If I can stand on the field, I can work the sideline official a little harder and maybe get the call I want later in the game." They keep pushing the limit, and then when they finally get a flag, they'd get indignant and accuse the official of suddenly being petty after ignoring rules all game long. And if the official does enforce the rule at the beginning of the game, the coach complains all night about how he got nickel-and-dimed from before the opening kickoff.
I don't know any of the players or coaches in this situation. But it seems to me that a coach who lets a player wear unauthorized jewelry in a district championship after umpires have enforced the rules all season long has no ground to stand on if the umpires don't handle the situation just the way he expects them to. All the coach had to do was bench one player one time in a non-district game in early March for wearing jewelry, and this incident never would have happened. Unfortunately, he chose not to handle it early. So he gets what he gets when he leaves it to the umpires to handle it late.
As far as the player's comment, "And if I'm the umpire, I don't throw out a kid in the district championship game so he can't play in the regionals for wearing a necklace," I would just turn that complaint right around. If I'm the player, I don't risk hurting my team in the district championship game by wearing unauthorized gear. Why put it in the hands of the umpire? Just wear the prescribed uniform.
quote:Originally posted by Swampboy:
As far as the player's comment, "And if I'm the umpire, I don't throw out a kid in the district championship game so he can't play in the regionals for wearing a necklace," I would just turn that complaint right around. If I'm the player, I don't risk hurting my team in the district championship game by wearing unauthorized gear. Why put it in the hands of the umpire? Just wear the prescribed uniform.
What I see here is, the player did not follow the rules. The umpire did not follow the rules, either. The player and his team are punished. The umpire is being supported.
I don't see any injustice in what's happening to Cave. I guess his comments may have been taken out of context, but they come across in the article as arrogant, and very unlike his reputation as a player.
I do see injustice to a team that's trying to win, when umpires disregard the rules and leave a bunch of guys who would like to win without their stud player in an elimination game. The other kids are being made to suffer for no good reason.
The rules say that when a player is found in violation, the umpire is to let the coach know so that the coach can do something about that specific player. A pre-game meeting does not suffice. The coach is not expected, per the rule, to do a strip search on his entire roster prior to first pitch. If someone has a necklace they absent-mindedly left on, or even if they left it on defiantly, the coach (as the protector of the team's collective interest) is supposed to be given an opportunity to take action to address the specific and identified transgression before facing consequences.
In any system where authority speaks from above, it is imperative that the people in authority conduct themselves above reproach so that respect for the authority can be built and maintained. When the authorities abuse their power by picking and choosing when to do what, or simply by closing ranks to protect one of their own from criticism, then they forfeit that respect. For this reason, it is more important that the suspension be lifted than that Jake Cave be taught a lesson.
Jake Cave is about to get drafted and probably get a huge payday. Worst case, he's on to LSU in a few months. His teammates, however, deserve to be treated according to the rules as they are written, not as someone wants them to be so that they can protect themselves from criticism and prove that they are c o c k of the walk.
I don't see any injustice in what's happening to Cave. I guess his comments may have been taken out of context, but they come across in the article as arrogant, and very unlike his reputation as a player.
I do see injustice to a team that's trying to win, when umpires disregard the rules and leave a bunch of guys who would like to win without their stud player in an elimination game. The other kids are being made to suffer for no good reason.
The rules say that when a player is found in violation, the umpire is to let the coach know so that the coach can do something about that specific player. A pre-game meeting does not suffice. The coach is not expected, per the rule, to do a strip search on his entire roster prior to first pitch. If someone has a necklace they absent-mindedly left on, or even if they left it on defiantly, the coach (as the protector of the team's collective interest) is supposed to be given an opportunity to take action to address the specific and identified transgression before facing consequences.
In any system where authority speaks from above, it is imperative that the people in authority conduct themselves above reproach so that respect for the authority can be built and maintained. When the authorities abuse their power by picking and choosing when to do what, or simply by closing ranks to protect one of their own from criticism, then they forfeit that respect. For this reason, it is more important that the suspension be lifted than that Jake Cave be taught a lesson.
Jake Cave is about to get drafted and probably get a huge payday. Worst case, he's on to LSU in a few months. His teammates, however, deserve to be treated according to the rules as they are written, not as someone wants them to be so that they can protect themselves from criticism and prove that they are c o c k of the walk.
Midlo,
I wasn't advocating any particular outcome, and from a fan's perspective, I always prefer for the best players to settle the contests on the field.
In fact, that was my perspective as a football official, too. I remember citing a player for unnecessary roughness even though his offense met the strict definition of fighting, which carries an automatic 2-game suspension. I thought 15 yards and his own coach benching him maintained order satisfactorily.
My point was that the coach and player unnecessarily put the issue in the hands of the umpire. We all know that umpires vary in temperament, rule knowledge, and adherence to strict protocol. Why put yourself in a situation where the umpire has to handle it just right to keep from hurting the team? Wearing the necklace was a pointless risk: it had no potential to help win a title and real potential to hinder.
I don't have an opinion on the morals or safety risks involved. I just think it was bad strategy.
Also, I stand by my observation that the coach should have prevented this problem in February or March.
I wasn't advocating any particular outcome, and from a fan's perspective, I always prefer for the best players to settle the contests on the field.
In fact, that was my perspective as a football official, too. I remember citing a player for unnecessary roughness even though his offense met the strict definition of fighting, which carries an automatic 2-game suspension. I thought 15 yards and his own coach benching him maintained order satisfactorily.
My point was that the coach and player unnecessarily put the issue in the hands of the umpire. We all know that umpires vary in temperament, rule knowledge, and adherence to strict protocol. Why put yourself in a situation where the umpire has to handle it just right to keep from hurting the team? Wearing the necklace was a pointless risk: it had no potential to help win a title and real potential to hinder.
I don't have an opinion on the morals or safety risks involved. I just think it was bad strategy.
Also, I stand by my observation that the coach should have prevented this problem in February or March.
Just to be clear, my comments were not intended as a criticism of your or anyone else's posts above. Just addressing the situation, on the assumption that the facts as reported in the newspaper are accurate -- admittedly not always a safe assumption.
I am criticizing the way the officials handled the situation. It all comes across as them closing ranks with wholesale disregard for other people affected. But then, what did I expect?
I am criticizing the way the officials handled the situation. It all comes across as them closing ranks with wholesale disregard for other people affected. But then, what did I expect?
got to admit that swampboy seems to have hit the nail on the head IMO. could not agree with his post more
I do not know this kid but it just seems he has to shoulder the blame on this one.
If the speed limit is 55 and I drive 75 all my life and then finally get a speeding ticket, do I accept the blame or complain about the trooper "having to get his quota"?
I hope his career path (LSU or MLB) brings him much success though.
I do not know this kid but it just seems he has to shoulder the blame on this one.
If the speed limit is 55 and I drive 75 all my life and then finally get a speeding ticket, do I accept the blame or complain about the trooper "having to get his quota"?
I hope his career path (LSU or MLB) brings him much success though.
in sports as in life, lack of discipline is not a happy thing..... sooner or later, you run out of chips.
Have to wonder if this costs Mr. Cave money. If you are a MLB GM do you wonder if this young man has the maturity to invest a multi-million dollar bonus and maybe your job? At a minimum he will be scrutinized much closer than he might have been before this incident.
Did he think of risking being a 1st round pick vs a 5th round pick will be worth it? Did anyone help him understand what is at stake for him personally?
I hope he has learned that he must play by the rules, kiss fanny when required and do what is expected.
Did he think of risking being a 1st round pick vs a 5th round pick will be worth it? Did anyone help him understand what is at stake for him personally?
I hope he has learned that he must play by the rules, kiss fanny when required and do what is expected.
This story brings to mind a game I saw last Friday. West Springfield at Madison, opening round of Regionals. First batter for WS comes to plate wearing a necklace. Umpire notices it, stops play, and loudly and directly issues a warning to both benches about jewelry and says that the next infraction will result in ejection. At the time, it seemed a little abrupt for such a "minor" infraction, but if it prevents what happened to the player in this article, it is well worth it. Gotta give props to that ump.
As for the player in the article, if he or his coach was indeed warned earlier in the game, then he has no leg to stand on when he is ejected. It's too bad that it results in a suspension for the next game as well, but players must know the rules and their consequences. Players are told to remove all jewelry from -- what -- Little League on? Don't tell me he didn't know he was in violation of the rules. Nobody is above the law, no matter how "important" they are to their team.
As for the player in the article, if he or his coach was indeed warned earlier in the game, then he has no leg to stand on when he is ejected. It's too bad that it results in a suspension for the next game as well, but players must know the rules and their consequences. Players are told to remove all jewelry from -- what -- Little League on? Don't tell me he didn't know he was in violation of the rules. Nobody is above the law, no matter how "important" they are to their team.
What is the logic behind not wearing a necklace while paying baseball? Anyone want to take a stab at it?
My mother used to tell me to not make faces because she knew someone whose face froze.
Is there a story out there about a baseball player who got decapitated that had on a necklace?
I remember once coaching a team of teenage girls in softball...I told a girl the umpire said she had to take her earrings off to play...she went home
My mother used to tell me to not make faces because she knew someone whose face froze.
Is there a story out there about a baseball player who got decapitated that had on a necklace?
I remember once coaching a team of teenage girls in softball...I told a girl the umpire said she had to take her earrings off to play...she went home
quote:Originally posted by hsbasballfan:
What is the logic behind not wearing a necklace while paying baseball? Anyone want to take a stab at it?
Somewhere someone will claim it is a "safety" issue, although they won't actually be able to fully explain it. More of the "because I said that it is".
The game is played at a heck of a lot faster pace at the MLB level and I'll be ****ed if I can remember the last time I saw an MLB'r dragged to the ground by his Phiten...
Its simply one of those stupid rules that no one can explain that no one wants to do away with because there isn't a real reason to do away with it. Because let's face it, there really is no argument for being able to wear them either...
At the end of the day the player did something outside the rules. Don't care how many times he had previously gotten away with it or whether or not he got a warning. He knowingly broke the rules and is upset that someone actually called him on it. Too bad. He always had the option of stuffing it in his bag prior to game time.
quote:Originally posted by hsbasballfan:
What is the logic behind not wearing a necklace while paying baseball? Anyone want to take a stab at it?
My mother used to tell me to not make faces because she knew someone whose face froze.
Is there a story out there about a baseball player who got decapitated that had on a necklace?
I remember once coaching a team of teenage girls in softball...I told a girl the umpire said she had to take her earrings off to play...she went home
probably if they changed the rules, it would have to
state how long of a chain, how thick, how long are the earrings or the next thing you know you would have Mr. T. out there pitching lol
Necklace rule, white sleaves, multi color glove rules probably started with a bellyaching coach whining about a distraction while his hitters were being blown away on the way to a 13-1 loss.
AD then takes it up with the District which is comprised of other AD's who have coaches that are tired of being smoked by the same team.
So the District changes the rules and in turn petitions the State association to change the rules to be uniform across the state.
The State thinks it's such a wonderful idea it writes a White Paper to the the HS Fed and viola you have a ban.
Or it could be OSHA. Probably 50/50 for either scenario.
AD then takes it up with the District which is comprised of other AD's who have coaches that are tired of being smoked by the same team.
So the District changes the rules and in turn petitions the State association to change the rules to be uniform across the state.
The State thinks it's such a wonderful idea it writes a White Paper to the the HS Fed and viola you have a ban.
Or it could be OSHA. Probably 50/50 for either scenario.
I take it Kecoughtan got eliminated somewhere along the line. Was it in the game Cave had to sit out? Would it have affected the outcome?
It is unfortunate because you want the best players on the best teams on the field in the posttseason to decide things, but this rule is not new (since at least 1993). The head coaches are told by the umpire for players to remove all jewelry when the ground rules are given in pre-game.
quote:Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
I take it Kecoughtan got eliminated somewhere along the line. Was it in the game Cave had to sit out? Would it have affected the outcome?
Kecoughtan lost to Great Bridge in the first round of Regionals.
quote:Originally posted by Swampboy:
The coach's comments were a bit revealing. When he described how umpires deal with the jewelry issue in other games, he basically admitted that players wore something unauthorized at games all season long and umpires had to correct players all the time.
Come on, Coach. You're twenty five games into the season and you still haven't taught your players how to dress for the game?
When I officiated football, it was the same thing. Certain coaches would engage in a little game of chicken every Friday night to try to undermine the officials' authority or resolve. Whether it was the strings tied around the biceps or extra tape or tinted face masks, there were some coaches who habitually let their players wear unauthorized items.
If they truly wanted their players to comply with the rules, they would fix the problem after the first pre-season scrimmage. There were plenty of coaches (usually on the better coached, more disciplined, more successful programs) whose players were always legally equipped.
However, there was a sizable minority that made uniform rules part of their weekly test of will with the zebras. They seemed to think, "If he won't enforce this little rule, maybe I can sneak a couple extra coaches into the box. If that doesn't get me a sideline warning, maybe I can get away with standing on the field. If I can stand on the field, I can work the sideline official a little harder and maybe get the call I want later in the game." They keep pushing the limit, and then when they finally get a flag, they'd get indignant and accuse the official of suddenly being petty after ignoring rules all game long. And if the official does enforce the rule at the beginning of the game, the coach complains all night about how he got nickel-and-dimed from before the opening kickoff.
I don't know any of the players or coaches in this situation. But it seems to me that a coach who lets a player wear unauthorized jewelry in a district championship after umpires have enforced the rules all season long has no ground to stand on if the umpires don't handle the situation just the way he expects them to. All the coach had to do was bench one player one time in a non-district game in early March for wearing jewelry, and this incident never would have happened. Unfortunately, he chose not to handle it early. So he gets what he gets when he leaves it to the umpires to handle it late.
As far as the player's comment, "And if I'm the umpire, I don't throw out a kid in the district championship game so he can't play in the regionals for wearing a necklace," I would just turn that complaint right around. If I'm the player, I don't risk hurting my team in the district championship game by wearing unauthorized gear. Why put it in the hands of the umpire? Just wear the prescribed uniform.
FYI, the players were told repeatedly by their coach all season that they could not wear jewelry. In this case, the player put the jewelry on in the game AFTER it had been removed before the game (team was losing, jewelry put on for good luck). The comment regarding it happening all season was not only regarding Kecoughtan, it was regarding ALL PD teams. During games, the umpires catch a player with jewelry and they ask the coach to remove it. That was how it was handled. The outrage was due to the fact that this was the ONLY case in which it was handled differently.
The player is far from a prima donna. The quotes in the paper were taken out of context.
So he willingly broke a rule for "good luck"? Hmmmm.
quote:Originally posted by Doubles Work:
So he willingly broke a rule for "good luck"? Hmmmm.
Not defending it, just telling it like it is. The coach was never told by the umpires that the player had jewelry on.
Based on WarriorPride's description, it sounds like the player was asking for a challenge...I don't care what reason, he obviously knew the rules and still decided to break them in the middle of a critical game. At that point, no blaming the coach or the ump, it was all on him. He let his team down. From my point of view, he let every other remaining playoff team down too as I always hope to see the best vs. the best and his actions may have changed that for other teams in the playoffs.
I do wish him the best of luck down the road and hope this incident will help him in the future.
I do wish him the best of luck down the road and hope this incident will help him in the future.
quote:Originally posted by TurnTwoNet:
Based on WarriorPride's description, it sounds like the player was asking for a challenge...I don't care what reason, he obviously knew the rules and still decided to break them in the middle of a critical game. At that point, no blaming the coach or the ump, it was all on him. He let his team down. From my point of view, he let every other remaining playoff team down too as I always hope to see the best vs. the best and his actions may have changed that for other teams in the playoffs.
I do wish him the best of luck down the road and hope this incident will help him in the future.
I'm a parent of one of the other players, I've talked to the coach about the incident and saw it first hand. Jake was not challenging anyone. He's a great kid, he's been to my house on many occasions and is very well mannered. I believe that because the umpires always stopped the game and had the coach (for all teams, not just Kecoughtan) remove the jewelry, he believed that's what would happen. The umpire actually saw the jewelry once and rather than demand that it be removed on the spot, he told Jake to take it off when he went into the dugout. We had a big inning and brought the game to within 1 run and Jake said he forgot about it. When the umpire asked him if he took the necklace off, he immediately put his glove down (he did not throw it) and pulled the necklace out from under his shirt to begin taking it off. Once the umpire saw this, he ejected Jake. The coach was never issued a warning regarding jewelry. I can't stress enough, Jake was not being a prima donna, he's a great kid, he made a bad choice, but based on what occurred all year, the umpire should not have thrown him out. The umpire should have stopped the game, told the coach who would have taken the jewelry and then the game goes on. The kid was wrong for putting the jewelry on, no question, but you have to ask, why was this handled differently than it was all year? I read on another forum that this was the only player or coach ejection all year. I don't know if that is true, but that's what was reported.
Oh, and one more thing...if that necklace is that kid's good luck charm, it sure didn't work for him. He might want to look for another one 
and while he's at it, maybe he can find one that doesn't break any rules)
and while he's at it, maybe he can find one that doesn't break any rules)
I think this subject has taken on the likeness of a dead horse...
quote:Originally posted by 4pApA:
IMO - if the ump told him to take it off when he went into the dugout and he forgot....that was the warning notification....while he may be a great kid and I wasn't there....the story (as told) reads a bit like "this doesn't apply to me"...do the rules say the 1st directive to remove must be given to the coach or is that just "best practice".....
The rule book is clear, it says "After playing action...the coach will be issued a warning for the first offense, player ejection on second". The problem is that the umpire commissioner said that at home plate, when they ask if the players are properly equipped, that is supposed to be the first warning. Another umpire association indicated that their commissioner stated that a warning cannot be issued until an offense has occurred, hence "After playing action".
The warning should have been issued to the coach, not the player and that didn't happen. There is clearly an interpretation issue regarding the rules. One association sees it one way, the peninsula association says that the warning takes place before the game started. All of this was reported in the Daily Press.
But again, the player knew he was breaking the rules. Period. Don't care why or its not fair or whatever. The rules say don't wear it, he did and he got ejected. Too bad but as I said before, he always had the option to NOT put it on. The worst part is all of the effort to somehow justify that what he did was okay and that it is the umpire who is at fault... Odd logic...
quote:Originally posted by NOVABBall13:
But again, the player knew he was breaking the rules. Period. Don't care why or its not fair or whatever. The rules say don't wear it, he did and he got ejected. Too bad but as I said before, he always had the option to NOT put it on. The worst part is all of the effort to somehow justify that what he did was okay and that it is the umpire who is at fault... Odd logic...
Someone posted an analogy on the Daily Press message board that was fitting. How many times have you driven 2-3 miles an hour over the speed limit? It's against the law but how often if ever do people get tickets? There's an expectation that you have grown accustomed to.
Wow...this story has more legs than the Monica Lewinsky scandal
quote:Originally posted by WarriorPride:quote:Originally posted by NOVABBall13:
But again, the player knew he was breaking the rules. Period. Don't care why or its not fair or whatever. The rules say don't wear it, he did and he got ejected. Too bad but as I said before, he always had the option to NOT put it on. The worst part is all of the effort to somehow justify that what he did was okay and that it is the umpire who is at fault... Odd logic...
Someone posted an analogy on the Daily Press message board that was fitting. How many times have you driven 2-3 miles an hour over the speed limit? It's against the law but how often if ever do people get tickets? There's an expectation that you have grown accustomed to.
I believe you stated that he PUT IT ON for good luck. Do you believe that he knew it was against the rules when he put it around his neck? If so, there really is no defense for his action.
quote:Originally posted by berryberrygood:
This story brings to mind a game I saw last Friday. West Springfield at Madison, opening round of Regionals. First batter for WS comes to plate wearing a necklace. Umpire notices it, stops play, and loudly and directly issues a warning to both benches about jewelry and says that the next infraction will result in ejection. At the time, it seemed a little abrupt for such a "minor" infraction, but if it prevents what happened to the player in this article, it is well worth it. Gotta give props to that ump.
As for the player in the article, if he or his coach was indeed warned earlier in the game, then he has no leg to stand on when he is ejected. It's too bad that it results in a suspension for the next game as well, but players must know the rules and their consequences. Players are told to remove all jewelry from -- what -- Little League on? Don't tell me he didn't know he was in violation of the rules. Nobody is above the law, no matter how "important" they are to their team.
yeah i guess i may be too old school, but regardless of rationale, everyone knew the rules. they tried to put themselves above the rules, blue called em on it. instant justice. is there a book of what rules to enforce? that would be ridicules. no sympathy whatsoever.
"No sympathy whatsoever"?
I don't go that far.
Even though the ejection was avoidable and somewhat self-inflicted, I still feel bad for him that his high school career ended on a sour note.
On the bright side, he will be able to wear his good luck necklace in plain sight in just a few weeks if he so chooses.
I'm looking forward to seeing his pro/college and outfielder/pitcher decisions unfold, and I wish him well as he moves onward and upward.
I don't go that far.
Even though the ejection was avoidable and somewhat self-inflicted, I still feel bad for him that his high school career ended on a sour note.
On the bright side, he will be able to wear his good luck necklace in plain sight in just a few weeks if he so chooses.
I'm looking forward to seeing his pro/college and outfielder/pitcher decisions unfold, and I wish him well as he moves onward and upward.
sb- agreed. not totally heartless, but there's a subtle difference between being sorry it happened and feeling sorry for him. I subscribe to the former. certainly wish him well in everything he does.
quote:Someone posted an analogy on the Daily Press message board that was fitting. How many times have you driven 2-3 miles an hour over the speed limit? It's against the law but how often if ever do people get tickets? There's an expectation that you have grown accustomed to.
You miss the entire point though. I understand that there is an expectation that I have grown accustomed to but that doesn't mean that the cop is wrong in giving me a ticket. I might drive away groaning and complaining about it but I also am of the generation that takes responsibility for my own actions and don't look to blame someone else when I break the rules. No matter how thin the line is sliced... He broke the rule, knowingly, and he paid the price. Yes, that sucks for him but it doesn't make it wrong...