Shefield and the Fan
gclark
way out of proportion.
--
-Glen
Thunderbird - Reclaim your inbox
Firefox - Take back the web
http://tinyurl.com/1he
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
>This mess is sure getting old. Who really cares. Its been blown
>way out of proportion.
Getting old?? This is breaking news. And the event happened less than
a week ago.
Maybe you don't want to hear about it because Sheffield has been
completely cleared and the "fans" may be facing charges.
What was blown out of proportion was Sheffield's response to the guy
who hit him.
RC
Lee Harris
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gisd61hpk20qs3plg...@4ax.com...
man, you are just sounding stupid now.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
Thanx for your important contribution to this thread. And thanx for
confirming that my comments were spot on:-))
RC
Lee Harris
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98td615akm6p0ij9n...@4ax.com...
dude
the TV clearly showed it was minimal contact, and certainly not serious.
Someone trying to "assault" a player does not half heartedly swoosh an open
hand at slow speed, like a retracted effort to grab the ball. Your "theory"
about uncovering "evidence" that he planned to go and assault a player is
just stupid. Your idea that the police should waste time on this is stupid.
The guy lost his tickets, IMO that was already too harsh. The police have no
place in this, the media should let it go, it's boring, no one was hurt, no
one was planning to hurt anyone, people reach in all the time. There is no
good reason to think the guy was trying anything, or he would have made a
better effort.
You are just sounding like someone with a stupid axe to grind. I think my
comments are more spot on than yours.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Whatever,
Translation: I will snip your entire response because I am completely
unable to explain how I could have asserted that the TV clearly showed
minimal contact since the camera angle made that viewpoint impossible.
I also cannot explain why the police and Red Sox management are acting
the way they are without some kind of axe to grind. And finally I have
decided to remain silent and thought a fool rather than to open my
mouth and remove all doubt.
>if you think the police man hours can't be better spent elsewhere,
I never said that the police man hours could not be better spent
elsewhere. Filing charges against you for abject stupidity would be a
start.
> then
>there's not much point discussing this non event further.
Thanx for small blessings:-))
RC
>
ReddShadoe
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98td615akm6p0ij9n...@4ax.com...
misinterpreted the video replay.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
><rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:98td615akm6p0ij9n...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:29:02 GMT, "Lee Harris"
>> <lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:gisd61hpk20qs3plg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:12:50 -0400, gclark <gcl...@noneya.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This mess is sure getting old. Who really cares. Its been blown
>>>>>way out of proportion.
>>>>
>>>> Getting old?? This is breaking news. And the event happened less than
>>>> a week ago.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you don't want to hear about it because Sheffield has been
>>>> completely cleared and the "fans" may be facing charges.
>>>>
>>>> What was blown out of proportion was Sheffield's response to the guy
>>>> who hit him.
>>>>
>>>> RC
>>>>
>>>
>>>man, you are just sounding stupid now.
>>>
>> Thanx for your important contribution to this thread. And thanx for
>> confirming that my comments were spot on:-))
>>
>> RC
>>
>
>dude
>the TV clearly showed it was minimal contact, and certainly not serious.
My TV did not clearly show the blow. I saw several replays on
different programs and not a single one showed the contact. Please
explain how you were able to get a view of the contacts when millions
of TV viewers across the country did not?? Or maybe it was just my
TV:-))
>Someone trying to "assault" a player does not half heartedly swoosh an open
>hand at slow speed, like a retracted effort to grab the ball.
When you are drunk you may swing like that. But since you are
convinced that the TV *clearly* showed minimum contact I question your
perception as well as your credibility.
> Your "theory"
>about uncovering "evidence" that he planned to go and assault a player is
>just stupid.
Why? I offered this as a possibility as to why the police are
aggressively pursing the case. I did not say that it was true, just
that it might be true.
>Your idea that the police should waste time on this is stupid.
Why is it a waste of time prosecuting someone for a crime??
>The guy lost his tickets, IMO that was already too harsh.
Fortunately the Red Sox organization has better sense than you.
> The police have no
>place in this, the media should let it go, it's boring, no one was hurt, no
>one was planning to hurt anyone, people reach in all the time.
Again you are asserting definitive opinions based upon lack of
information.
Actually YOU have no place in this. The police have jurisdiction over
those who break the law. They have every right to assert their
authority when appropriate based upon available evidence.
>There is no
>good reason to think the guy was trying anything, or he would have made a
>better effort.
And you were saying that I was sounding stupid.
>You are just sounding like someone with a stupid axe to grind.
I guess the Red Sox management and police also have an axe to grind
too.
> I think my
>comments are more spot on than yours.
Now why does that not come as a surprise to me:-)))
RC
>
ReddShadoe
"gclark" <gcl...@noneya.net> wrote in message
news:7tOdnXmUns-...@gwi.net...
Yeah, so why not start an unprovoked new thread about it?
QuiGon
> way out of proportion.
There's an entire industry of talking heads (PTI, ATH, 1st and 10, etc, etc,
etc) that need to justify their jobs by over-reacting to such things. They
need to get ratings and viewers, so their sensationalize things as best they
can. Chris House happens to be the current topic du jour.
Lee Harris
if you think the police man hours can't be better spent elsewhere, then
Lee Harris
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:je0e61d984kmfodih...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:25:21 GMT, "Lee Harris"
> <lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>agreed. We both believe the other is an idiot. I am betting there are more
>>people that agree with me than you.
>
> If that were the case I would not be so quick to make that view public
> by those who believe it:-))))
>
> In any case the Red Sox management does not agree with you, the Red
> Sox player whose comments I heard do not agree with you, the baseball
> commissioner does not agree with you, the Boston police do not agree
> with you. But I am sure that every village idiot is squarely in your
> corner.
>
> RC
yep, and it's good to see so much media coverage. It would be a shame if
minor incidents like a kid being beaten to death in a little league game got
even a 20th of the coverage of this blatant attempt by a clearly drunk
semi-retired ex mercenary to disembowel an innocent ballplayer. Let's hope
the police forces across the USA can spare a few minutes of their time to
tidy up the loose ends in the murder case after dealing with the court case
of the man who clearly ruffled the outer 5 layers of epidermis of Gary
Sheffield
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
ReddShadoe
"Lee Harris" <lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:5iD9e.40994$pA6....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> <rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fhvd61ht3hihddq26...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:07:29 GMT, "Lee Harris"
>> <lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Whatever,
>>
>> Translation: I will snip your entire response because I am completely
>> unable to explain how I could have asserted that the TV clearly showed
>> minimal contact since the camera angle made that viewpoint impossible.
>
> that this is a "serious" incident.
>
>
>> I also cannot explain why the police and Red Sox management are acting
>> the way they are without some kind of axe to grind. And finally I have
>> decided to remain silent and thought a fool rather than to open my
>> mouth and remove all doubt.
>>
>
> was made by the fan, his arm was not moving anywhere near fast enough or
> with any force to be an intentional assault.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>if you think the police man hours can't be better spent elsewhere,
>>
>> I never said that the police man hours could not be better spent
>> elsewhere. Filing charges against you for abject stupidity would be a
>> start.
>
> might be missing, like some X-files conspiracy that the fan had a secret
> plot to "assault" Sheffield.
>
> "You don't have all the facts. If investigation gives credible evidence
> that they deliberately assaulted Sheffield while attempting to field
> the ball, you don't think that criminal charges are warranted?"
>
> I still don't think criminal charges are warranted and strongly, no,
> violently continue to suggest that police time be better spent elsewhere.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> then
>>>there's not much point discussing this non event further.
>>
>> Thanx for small blessings:-))
>>
>> RC
>>>
>
> people that agree with me than you.
>>
>
>
Lee Harris
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fhvd61ht3hihddq26...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:07:29 GMT, "Lee Harris"
> <lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>Whatever,
>
> Translation: I will snip your entire response because I am completely
> unable to explain how I could have asserted that the TV clearly showed
> minimal contact since the camera angle made that viewpoint impossible.
translation: bored of including all the waffle crap where you've decided
that this is a "serious" incident.
> I also cannot explain why the police and Red Sox management are acting
> the way they are without some kind of axe to grind. And finally I have
> decided to remain silent and thought a fool rather than to open my
> mouth and remove all doubt.
>
The replays I saw were more than enough to prove that no exerted effort was
made by the fan, his arm was not moving anywhere near fast enough or with
any force to be an intentional assault.
>
>
>>if you think the police man hours can't be better spent elsewhere,
>
> I never said that the police man hours could not be better spent
> elsewhere. Filing charges against you for abject stupidity would be a
> start.
You said the police should be involved because you thought some facts might
be missing, like some X-files conspiracy that the fan had a secret plot to
"assault" Sheffield.
"You don't have all the facts. If investigation gives credible evidence
that they deliberately assaulted Sheffield while attempting to field
the ball, you don't think that criminal charges are warranted?"
I still don't think criminal charges are warranted and strongly, no,
violently continue to suggest that police time be better spent elsewhere.
>
>
>
>> then
>>there's not much point discussing this non event further.
>
> Thanx for small blessings:-))
>
> RC
>>
agreed. We both believe the other is an idiot. I am betting there are more
ReddShadoe
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1cud611sl597bkemf...@4ax.com...
your perception of the video, one could make the same assumption about you.
And since no crime was committed, the police really have no place in any of
this.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<redds...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>Wow...I guess you misinterpreted Lee's comments as much as you
>misinterpreted the video replay.
Well if I misinterpreted the video replay then so did the following:
Johnny Damon
Kurt Schilling
Red Sox Management
Boston Police
Bud Selig
Baseball Commission
But you guys are in good company. House and the idiot who threw the
beer agree with you.
RC
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
He was provoked. He was provoked by the person who posted the
information that no action was taken against Sheffield. I have a
feeling he was not too happy about that.
If Sheffield was suspended for a few games and fined thousands of
dollars I have a feeling he would not have thought it was getting old
and blown out of proportion.
I am amazed that more Yankee fans have not been trolling in this
newsgroup considering the recent events.
RC
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Go Sox!!
Defending 2004 World Champions
BadgerBC
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khce6194un3jooii9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:14:14 -0400, "ReddShadoe"
> <redds...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"gclark" <gcl...@noneya.net> wrote in message
> >news:7tOdnXmUns-...@gwi.net...
> >> This mess is sure getting old. Who really cares. Its been blown
> >> way out of proportion.
> >> --
> >> -Glen
> >>
> >> Thunderbird - Reclaim your inbox
> >> Firefox - Take back the web
> >> http://tinyurl.com/1he
> >
> >Yeah, so why not start an unprovoked new thread about it?
>
> He was provoked. He was provoked by the person who posted the
> information that no action was taken against Sheffield. I have a
> feeling he was not too happy about that.
>
> If Sheffield was suspended for a few games and fined thousands of
> dollars I have a feeling he would not have thought it was getting old
> and blown out of proportion.
>
> I am amazed that more Yankee fans have not been trolling in this
> newsgroup considering the recent events.
>
> RC
>
We leave that to YF4E <sigh>. I think some of the fans (or at least I
can't) just can't tell the maliciousness or the intent of House beyond
reasonable doubt. Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus who also happens to be
a diehard Yankee fan put it best today:
"The consensus among my readers was that Christopher House was trying to
interfere with Sheffield in some way, most likely by flipping off his cap. I
can see that, and agree that there was a bit more malice in his movements
than I thought there was. I think the Red Sox have done the right thing by
taking away his season tickets. Whether the punishment necessarily fits the
crime is open to debate, but the punishment certainly suits the larger goal
of dissuading fans from interfering with balls--and players--in play.
The bigger picture is why I think, even though he handled himself fairly
well, Sheffield needs to take a short suspension. He did shove the fan after
the contact and before throwing the ball back to the infield, and I think
it's worth reinforcing the idea that players cannot go after fans in the
stands. I'm not someone who thinks people should be punished to set an
example, but in this case Sheffield did do something wrong, and to not
acknowledge that through disciplinary action sets a precedent with which I'm
uncomfortable."
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>but in this case Sheffield did do something wrong,
In your opinion. The police, the Red Sox, and the Baseball
Commissioner disagree. And I agree with them. There is no doubt that
sheffield shoved the fan. I agree with that. I also agree in principle
that players should avoid contact with fans. As with all rules there
are sometimes exceptions. This is an exception because of the
circumstances. I am glad that they are rewarding Sheffield for showing
restraint in a difficult situation.
Perhaps if we were privy to more information more of us would see
that. OTOH with some in this group, unless Sheffield's heart stopped
beating they would insist, no harm no foul:-))
BadgerBC
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6lie6191kiaj9ncqs...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:20:04 GMT, "BadgerBC"
> <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >but in this case Sheffield did do something wrong,
>
> In your opinion. The police, the Red Sox, and the Baseball
> Commissioner disagree. And I agree with them. There is no doubt that
> sheffield shoved the fan. I agree with that. I also agree in principle
> that players should avoid contact with fans. As with all rules there
> are sometimes exceptions. This is an exception because of the
> circumstances. I am glad that they are rewarding Sheffield for showing
> restraint in a difficult situation.
>
> Perhaps if we were privy to more information more of us would see
> that. OTOH with some in this group, unless Sheffield's heart stopped
> beating they would insist, no harm no foul:-))
>
> RC
>
Well it's Joe Sheehan's opinion, but I'd share it as well (for a different
reason). Joe points to the shove which I don't agree as it's excusable IMO
as perhaps quick reaction to contact. Where I have a problem is having a
player go back to confront the fan instead of calling out the security (the
point isn't that he should be lauded for cocking and holding back, but that
someone should question his decision to go back there in the first place).
To me it's sort of like the time when Patrick Ewing and half the Knicks got
suspended for leaving the bench. I thought there was no intent on their
part to participate in the brawl, but the punishment was fair regardless of
how I felt about it as a fan.
BPD is irrelevant because no one in their right mind thought Sheffield
should've been charged with anything. It was strictly within the purview of
MLB to decide how to discipline a player. Whether BPD ends up charging
House and another I'm not sure about as I don't have the facts (such as
people who can attest to House's behavior prior to the incident). Maybe he
was drunk and disorderly, but I just don't know it yet. Still, MLB has to
balance its view on long term precedents. When Stern passed the rule on
leaving the bench, he knew it was possible that it might have serious and
perhaps unfair implications down the line. Still he did it to prevent a
bigger problem. I don't think this is the last time a player will approach
a rowdy crowd. And the best policy IMO is to make the rule and enforcement
clear that it dissuades them even from contemplating it.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is the last time a player will approach
>a rowdy crowd. And the best policy IMO is to make the rule and enforcement
>clear that it dissuades them even from contemplating it.
I completely agree that it is important to set rules to dissuade
players from assaulting fans. However I think it also important not to
dissuade players from exercising good judgement and self defense when
hit.
I completely disagree with some who say that under no circumstances
should a player hit a fan. We saw a rare example of when it was
appropriate IMO. Players have a right to defend themselves, bottom
line. At the second Shef was hit he did not know whether the hitting
would continue so he shoved the jerk back and went about his business.
He did NOT as one person said, take two steps forward to make the
shove. He was right at the seats when it happened which is why House
was able to make contact with him.
BadgerBC
<rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58ke61tuegdfbba0f...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:00:50 GMT, "BadgerBC"
> <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think this is the last time a player will approach
> >a rowdy crowd. And the best policy IMO is to make the rule and
enforcement
> >clear that it dissuades them even from contemplating it.
>
> I completely agree that it is important to set rules to dissuade
> players from assaulting fans. However I think it also important not to
> dissuade players from exercising good judgement and self defense when
> hit.
>
> I completely disagree with some who say that under no circumstances
> should a player hit a fan. We saw a rare example of when it was
> appropriate IMO. Players have a right to defend themselves, bottom
> line. At the second Shef was hit he did not know whether the hitting
> would continue so he shoved the jerk back and went about his business.
> He did NOT as one person said, take two steps forward to make the
> shove. He was right at the seats when it happened which is why House
> was able to make contact with him.
But that's not really the case here, is it? I'm not faulting Sheffield for
the shove which is understandable. Where I won't go is to compare this
incident to when a fan (talk about picking the wrong target) charged Randy
Myers. Myers who was a Hapkido, Gracie jujitsu expert did exactly what a
trained martial artist should do which was to wait for the guy to run to him
and then subdued him without causing serious bodily harm. Once Sheff threw
the ball back, he's clearly far enough away from further swings or reaches
of House. If House like a moron jumps the over the fence and charges him,
then I think Sheff has every right to defend himself (within reason and by
that I mean once House's on the ground Sheff can't stomp on his head). I
just don't see how he could *reasonably* (I'm not an attorney and there are
many here who are. I'm somewhat familiar with California statutes which had
been interpreted IIRC as honest belief in the need to defend oneself as well
as objectively reasonable standard. As I was told, Mass statutes are
different though) perceive that there was further threat and that by walking
to the guy and cocking his fist he could dissuade the "potential assailant"
from further hostile action.
gclark
--
-Glen
gclark
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:14:14 -0400, "ReddShadoe"
> <redds...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"gclark" <gcl...@noneya.net> wrote in message
>>news:7tOdnXmUns-...@gwi.net...
>>
>>>This mess is sure getting old. Who really cares. Its been blown
>>>way out of proportion.
>>>--
>>>-Glen
>>>
>>>Thunderbird - Reclaim your inbox
>>> Firefox - Take back the web
>>> http://tinyurl.com/1he
>>
>>Yeah, so why not start an unprovoked new thread about it?
>
>
> He was provoked. He was provoked by the person who posted the
> information that no action was taken against Sheffield. I have a
> feeling he was not too happy about that.
>
> If Sheffield was suspended for a few games and fined thousands of
> dollars I have a feeling he would not have thought it was getting old
> and blown out of proportion.
>
*Wrong* Have all the feelings you want. You don't know me or what I think.
I have no ax to grind with Sheffield or the fan. You on the other hand
have this
fan convicted. As you yourself have said, the camera angles don't show
the contact
all that well. So where do you get off calling others in this group names?
You sure know how to win friends and influence people.
> I am amazed that more Yankee fans have not been trolling in this
> newsgroup considering the recent events.
>
We don't need the Yank fans, we have you.
> RC
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Go Sox!!
> Defending 2004 World Champions
--
-Glen
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
>rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:14:14 -0400, "ReddShadoe"
>> <redds...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"gclark" <gcl...@noneya.net> wrote in message
>>>news:7tOdnXmUns-...@gwi.net...
>>>
>>>>This mess is sure getting old. Who really cares. Its been blown
>>>>way out of proportion.
>>>>--
>>>>-Glen
>>>>
>>>>Thunderbird - Reclaim your inbox
>>>> Firefox - Take back the web
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/1he
>>>
>>>Yeah, so why not start an unprovoked new thread about it?
>>
>>
>> He was provoked. He was provoked by the person who posted the
>> information that no action was taken against Sheffield. I have a
>> feeling he was not too happy about that.
>>
>You don't know jack.
Sure do. He lives next door to me. I think it is you who doesn't know
Jack Schitt. I would refer you to
http://home.pacbell.net/diana_do/knowjack.htm
>
>
>> If Sheffield was suspended for a few games and fined thousands of
>> dollars I have a feeling he would not have thought it was getting old
>> and blown out of proportion.
>>
>*Wrong* Have all the feelings you want. You don't know me or what I think.
>I have no ax to grind with Sheffield or the fan. You on the other hand
>have this
>fan convicted.
I do?? I have given my opinion. Sorry that you don't agree with it.
>As you yourself have said, the camera angles don't show
>the contact
>all that well.
Yep. And I never said that the I saw a hard blow. I said it appeared
as if he got hit. However there are some in this group who proclaim
that there was no contact or that contact was light even though their
was no camera angle to allow them to see.
>So where do you get off calling others in this group names?
Who do you think has the right to call others names?? Do you confront
*everyone* who calls others names or just those who you don't like
who calls people names. If someone says that the video obviously shows
that Shef was not hit, I believe I have the right to call that person
an appropriate name.
>You sure know how to win friends and influence people.
Dude, have you thought about the fact that I may not be interested in
making friends or influencing those who I call names. I confront
people when I think that they deserve it. I don't call people names
gratuitously.
>
>
>> I am amazed that more Yankee fans have not been trolling in this
>> newsgroup considering the recent events.
>>
>
>We don't need the Yank fans, we have you.
You sure seem to know how to win friends and influence people.
But then again I doubt if you want to be my friend. Fine. We have
something we agree on.
As far as being a Red Sox fan, I am as die hard as they come. That is
why I respect the Red Sox for having the integrity to admit that
Sheffield handled himself well and did nothing wrong.
It is many members of this group that have already convicted Sheffield
just because he is a Yankee. If this happened in Yankee stadium and
Manny was on the receiving end those who were most critical of Shef
would probably be the biggest defenders of Manny. And I would also
defend Manny, not just because he is a REd Sox player but because I
would have thought he acted appropriately.
Johnny
>>
>>You don't know jack.
>
>
> Sure do. He lives next door to me. I think it is you who doesn't know
> Jack Schitt. I would refer you to
> http://home.pacbell.net/diana_do/knowjack.htm
>
>
TFF
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>But that's not really the case here, is it? I'm not faulting Sheffield for
>the shove which is understandable.
But there are many in this group who *are* faulting him for the shove.
He was wrong for going back to the seats to confront whoever hit him.
That was a very bad decision that could have let to disastrous
consequences. He is human. He lost his cool. He then regained control
before security came over to intercede.
> Once Sheff threw
>the ball back, he's clearly far enough away from further swings or reaches
>of House.
Yep and there is where he made his mistake.
>If House like a moron jumps the over the fence and charges him,
>then I think Sheff has every right to defend himself
Yeah, but I suspect that House is just a coward. He knew that Shef
would kick his ass if he came into the field. Maybe he figured he
could get in a cheap shot and get away with it. I bet that the
season's ticket holders in his section are glad he is gone. Guys like
that ruin the game for everyone.
>(within reason and by
>that I mean once House's on the ground Sheff can't stomp on his head).
Absolutely. I have stated previously that a person can use
*reasonable* force to defend themselves. Sometimes it is not clear
what is reasonable and what is not.
> As I was told, Mass statutes are
>different though) perceive that there was further threat and that by walking
>to the guy and cocking his fist he could dissuade the "potential assailant"
>from further hostile action.
But he could also have incited the fan to further violence. The guy
could have hit him and then claimed it was in self defense since Shef
did cock his fist and appeared ready to throw a blow. In hindsight
obviously Shef's going back over was a mistake. Who knows what any of
us would do under those circumstances. It is easy to sit back and
judge others.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>And rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com opened up and revealed to the world
>news:gisd61hpk20qs3plg...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:12:50 -0400, gclark <gcl...@noneya.net> wrote:
>>
>> >This mess is sure getting old. Who really cares. Its been blown
>> >way out of proportion.
>>
>> Getting old?? This is breaking news. And the event happened less than
>> a week ago.
>>
>> Maybe you don't want to hear about it because Sheffield has been
>> completely cleared and the "fans" may be facing charges.
>>
>> What was blown out of proportion was Sheffield's response to the guy
>> who hit him.
>>
>> RC
>>
>
>Richard,
>
>I agree with you. Sheff did NOTHING to warrant any kind of punishment and
>that he showed great restraint in not letting it escalate any further then
>it had.
Yes, but we should not forget that Shef *did* go back to the stands to
confront the guy who hit him and that was a bad decision especially
since there was no threat to him at that point.
If he was going to be fined then it would be for that action. None of
his other actions were inappropriate IMO. I think that they rewarded
Shef for restraining himself *after* getting back to the stands and I
agree with their doing that.
> I do think that so far the fans involed have gotten off very easy
>(so far) Mr. House losing his season tickets for the remainder of the
>season and the beer thrower being banned from purchasing anymore tickets
>for the remainder of the season. I personally think that both should be
>banned from the stadium for the remainder of the season, and that Mr.
>House should NOT get a refund for his tickets.
Yep. It is a joke to just have them not be able to buy tickets when
others can buy them for them. I don't think that legally the Red Sox
can ban him from the stadium without giving him back his money. But
the Red Sox can bring civil action against him if they feel that they
were damaged somehow by his action.
> I also agree with the
>Boston PD in pressing charges.
If this does go to court we will finally find out all the evidence
they have against this guy since it will have to be made public
record. But I suspect that some of the members in this group really
don't care about the facts. They just want to hang Sheffield when as
you say he was just trying to do his job when he was hit out of the
blue. It is tough enough playing the Sox that you don't need so called
fans interfering with you. Let the Sox win fair and square. We don't
need to give the Yanks or their fans any excuses for their losing.
>
>As "we" need to send a msg to the fans that this kind of behavior will NOT
>be tolerated and that there will be penities to their actions.
Absolutely. Thanx for your thoughtful comments.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
>I suppose that you would have like to have seen Sheff punished in some
>way? All he knew at the time is that he was trying to do his job when he
>felt someone's hand hit him in the face. And he thought that his lip had
>been split opened. It turned out that his lip wasn't split open, but he
>still felt as IF it was.
Yep. Some people in this group are quick to call Shef a wimp and other
creative insults for not just sucking it up. I know that there have
been times that I have been *accidentally* hit by a hand on my lip and
I thought that my lip split open but it did not.
The hand is hard/bony and the lip very sensitive. It does not take
much of a blow to cause considerable pain and discomfort in that area
without any physical evidence of a blow. But again some of the "fans"
in this newsgroup would only be convinced that a hard blow was
delivered if Sheffield had to be carried off in a stretcher or if he
exsanguinated and even then they probably would be ridiculing him for
not sucking it up. But somehow I think that these guys would be the
biggest whiners if someone hit them. Funny how it works out like that.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>And "Lee Harris" <lee.h...@virgin.net> opened up and revealed to the
>world news:5iD9e.40994$pA6....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
>
>>
>> <rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fhvd61ht3hihddq26...@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:07:29 GMT, "Lee Harris"
>> > <lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Whatever,
>> >
>> > Translation: I will snip your entire response because I am completely
>> > unable to explain how I could have asserted that the TV clearly showed
>> > minimal contact since the camera angle made that viewpoint impossible.
>>
>> translation: bored of including all the waffle crap where you've decided
>> that this is a "serious" incident.
>>
>>
>> > I also cannot explain why the police and Red Sox management are acting
>> > the way they are without some kind of axe to grind. And finally I have
>> > decided to remain silent and thought a fool rather than to open my
>> > mouth and remove all doubt.
>> >
>>
>> The replays I saw were more than enough to prove that no exerted effort
>> was made by the fan, his arm was not moving anywhere near fast enough or
>> with any force to be an intentional assault.
>
>Ah, but you haven't seen ALL of the footage as there are cameras in place
>that we the public have not been allowed to see the footage of. I believe
>taht it is this footage that has caused the Boston Red Sox management as
>well as the Boston PD to act the way that they have.
Lee makes a big deal out of how quickly his arm was moving. I am not
suggesting that House was trying to knock Sheffield out. I *am*
suggesting that he *may* have deliberately trying to interfere with
Sheffield while he was fielding the ball. He clearly *did* interfere
with Shef. The only question is whether there is good evidence that
this interference was intentional. That would require witness
testimony. None of us are privy to statements made by witnesses AFAIK.
Perhaps we will hear from these witnesses either in the media or in
the courtroom. Stay tuned.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>And rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com opened up and revealed to the world
>news:je0e61d984kmfodih...@4ax.com:
>> If that were the case I would not be so quick to make that view public
>> by those who believe it:-))))
>>
>> In any case the Red Sox management does not agree with you, the Red
>> Sox player whose comments I heard do not agree with you, the baseball
>> commissioner does not agree with you, the Boston police do not agree
>> with you. But I am sure that every village idiot is squarely in your
>> corner.
>>
>> RC
>>
>
>Richard,
>
>Nor do I agree with him.
That is because you are obviously not one of the village idiots:-)))
But alas this group seems to have more than its fair share of VIs:-(
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>You said the police should be involved because you thought some facts might
>be missing, like some X-files conspiracy that the fan had a secret plot to
>"assault" Sheffield.
No. You misinterpreted (?lied about) what I said. I said that the
police have more information than we do about the facts of the case
and that *maybe* the police found witnesses that might provide
evidence that the contact was willful and malicious. I never spoke of
any kind of conspiracy. You like to make things up as you go along.
Are you related to Griff??
>
>"You don't have all the facts. If investigation gives credible evidence
>that they deliberately assaulted Sheffield while attempting to field
>the ball, you don't think that criminal charges are warranted?"
>
>I still don't think criminal charges are warranted and strongly, no,
>violently continue to suggest that police time be better spent elsewhere.
Yes, it is obvious that you want to protect the "fans" at all costs.
Even if there is credible evidence that they assaulted Sheffield
deliberately you STILL don't think criminal charges are warranted.
That says it all. Thanx for making it so clear.
Lee Harris
"Digital_Cowboy" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963F8CB3997E...@24.168.128.86...
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> world news:OtD9e.40998$pA6....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
>
>>
>> yep, and it's good to see so much media coverage. It would be a shame if
>> minor incidents like a kid being beaten to death in a little league game
>> got even a 20th of the coverage of this blatant attempt by a clearly
>> drunk semi-retired ex mercenary to disembowel an innocent ballplayer.
>> Let's hope the police forces across the USA can spare a few minutes of
>> their time to tidy up the loose ends in the murder case after dealing
>> with the court case of the man who clearly ruffled the outer 5 layers of
>> epidermis of Gary Sheffield
>>
>>
>>
>
> Lee,
>
> The bottom line is that those two men committed a crime. It would be
> criminal of the police NOT to follow up on it.
>
> And whether or not the man was drunk at the time he committed the crime in
> no way lessens the fact that a crime was committed. The "I was drunk at
> the time and are not responsible for my actions" defense doesn't wash
> anymore. Just look at all of the DUI/DWI cases every month.
>
> Also it does not matter IF Sheff was injured or not, he was struck, and is
> therefore the innocent victim.
I disagree. By that count, almost everyone commits crimes far more often
than they'd care to admit. Never shoved someone or made unauthorised
physical contact? Most people have. In the case of a bit of "handbags at
five paces (as we call it over here) where no one was in any way hurt, IN
ANY WAY hurt, and punishment has been doled out by a relevant body (eg,
banned from a bar, tickets removed from a fan), there is just no way on
earth anyone can conceivably with a straight face say the police should
waste a single microsecond on this, and they probably wouldn't if it wasn't
on the news so much, hence making it a political issue. All that was needed
was a stern reprimand, (I'm assuming the guy meant to hit Sheffield which I
don't believe either, but that's by the by), revoke his tickets, make a
statement to that effect, and let the police get on with solving actual
crimes that are relevant and meaningful to peoples lives, such as solving
murders, rapes, burglaries, robberies and the like.
somewhat off topic
Do you know there is a court case going on over here where after 5 days of
deliberating the jury must decide if Harold Shipman the serial killer doctor
committed suicide or had an accidental death. Who gives a rats ass?
Seriously, some peoples perspectives are just so out of whack I can't even
begin to understand it.
Lee Harris
>
> Lee makes a big deal out of how quickly his arm was moving. I am not
> suggesting that House was trying to knock Sheffield out. I *am*
> suggesting that he *may* have deliberately trying to interfere with
> Sheffield while he was fielding the ball. He clearly *did* interfere
> with Shef. The only question is whether there is good evidence that
> this interference was intentional. That would require witness
> testimony. None of us are privy to statements made by witnesses AFAIK.
>
> Perhaps we will hear from these witnesses either in the media or in
> the courtroom. Stay tuned.
>
> RC
>
Lee is not sure about the incident at all, it's inconclusive, it is my
belief that the video I saw does not support a deliberate, pre meditated
attack, it did not support a significant blow aimed at Sheffield and I would
bet my life savings that Sheffield was in no way IN NO WAY hurt or injured,
other than surprised and shocked perhaps.
Lee's main point is that the police have better things to do with their
time. A stiff word at the time of the incident by a security officer, maybe
a policeman there on the scene?, revoke of tickets, and public
statement/naming of the guy is more than enough for this non-event.
I am 10000000% sure there are a thousand other things on the desks of every
police officer in Boston that are much more important to the quality of
peoples lives in that area, than proceeding with some farce investigation
over this incident.
If everything you say is true, why are the police not investigating A-Rod
for slapping (*ASSAULTING*) Arroyo, or for Varitek striking a blow to
A-Rod's face (*ASSAULT*). How about every single time a scuffle breaks out
in a bar, or every time a heated argument leads to one party shoving the
other (*ASSAULTING*)
Get real fellas. The police should not be involved. End of story. How you
could argue otherwise beggars belief.
Lee Harris
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> And "Lee Harris" <lee.h...@virgin.net> opened up and revealed to the
>
>> Whatever, if you think the police man hours can't be better spent
>> elsewhere, then there's not much point discussing this non event
>> further.
>>
>>
>
> Lee,
>
> It is not a question of whether or not the police man hours can be better
> spent elsewhere or not.
oh yes it is. It's called prioritisation of resources.
The question is should fans be allowed to get
> away with behaving inappropriately or not. And the answer is NO, the fans
> should NOT be allowed to get away with behaving inappropriately.
IF the behaviour was deemed inappropriate, a stern word from an officer at
the game, or security officer, plus ticket revoking, plus the shame of being
on TV and in the news, plus a public statement from the team and MLB should
be more than enough, MORE than enough.
Police have no place in this. If the fan had swung a baseball bat at
Sheffields head, then yes, that is a serious assault. What I saw, what you
saw, and what everyone saw was debatable at best, certainly inconclusive and
absolutely MINOR in content. No one was hurt, no one was even remotely close
to being hurt. He got punished, an example was made. Security already exists
to "protect" these players from fans. Wasting police time here will achieve
jack squat, will mean jack squat and will mean that somewhere else,
somebody's complaint or case that is meaningful will not be handled.
THE POLICE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH YOUR TAX MONEY
>
> Nor does it matter IF Mr. House intended to strike Sheff or not, he did.
what? so in your world, the police should be brought into a full
investigation even for accidental contacts? In which case, please send them
to my house, I bumped into more than a dozen people every time I visited
Fenway Park.
>
> Think of it this way, IF you are driving down the street and say you drop
> your cell phone. You bend down to pick it up, and while doing so you
> strike and kill a small child. Should you not be arrested for vehicular
> manslaughter?? I mean granted you not "intend" to hit and kill that small
> child. Yet that would be the outcome of your actions. . .
Of course you should you melonhead. Why are you being so obtuse. You are
just making my whole point. Well, you're making my point and also being
stupid because
1) not driving with due attention is already a crime, for just such an
eventuality
2) manslaughter is a term for when you kill someone but withour prior intent
(or something like that)
manslaughter was not committed. MINOR contact was made, of which the
intention was highly debatable and far from conclusive. It's been dealt
with. No child has been killed. NO ONE WAS HURT.
In what doo lally mental world do you live in that a police chief cannot
distinguish between a valid case where a child has been killed, and one
public disorder accusation that's minor, where not a single personw as
hurt, and where the man in question has been named, shamed, accused, had
tickets revoked (the Red Sox stated they are thinking about giving his
tickets back for 2006, so they must think it really serious), and been
ejected from the ground.
That is why whole frigging point. PRIORITISATION of resources
The police have no business getting involved in the Sheffield-House incident
NO BUSINESS. AT ALL.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>"Digital_Cowboy" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns963F8679FE45...@24.168.128.78...
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> And "Lee Harris" <lee.h...@virgin.net> opened up and revealed to the
>> world news:l1D9e.40993$pA6....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
>>
>>> Whatever, if you think the police man hours can't be better spent
>>> elsewhere, then there's not much point discussing this non event
>>> further.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Lee,
>>
>> It is not a question of whether or not the police man hours can be better
>> spent elsewhere or not.
>
>oh yes it is. It's called prioritisation of resources.
>
>The question is should fans be allowed to get
>> away with behaving inappropriately or not. And the answer is NO, the fans
>> should NOT be allowed to get away with behaving inappropriately.
>
>IF the behaviour was deemed inappropriate, a stern word from an officer at
>the game, or security officer, plus ticket revoking, plus the shame of being
>on TV and in the news, plus a public statement from the team and MLB should
>be more than enough, MORE than enough.
>
>Police have no place in this.
They certainly do have a place in this especially *IF* there is
credible and convincing evidence that House *deliberately* tried to
interfere with Sheffield's making a play on the ball by physical
contact.
None of us AFAIK are privy to the testimony of various witnesses who
were questioned so it is a moot question.
>If the fan had swung a baseball bat at
>Sheffields head, then yes, that is a serious assault.
He is not being charged with a serious assault. He is being charged
with a misdemeanor. Lee apparently thinks that police should only deal
with felonious behavior. If they did that, jerks like House could act
with impunity.
> What I saw, what you
>saw, and what everyone saw was debatable at best, certainly inconclusive and
>absolutely MINOR in content. No one was hurt, no one was even remotely close
>to being hurt.
It is not wise to wait til someone is hurt before one prosecutes
especially *IF* the action was deliberate and malicious.
> He got punished, an example was made.
Depending on the evidence he might deserve to be punished more. None
of us know all the evidence.
> Security already exists
>to "protect" these players from fans.
Irrelevant. Security did not prevent this guy from what he did.
> Wasting police time here will achieve
>jack squat, will mean jack squat and will mean that somewhere else,
>somebody's complaint or case that is meaningful will not be handled.
Bullshit. It is not a waste of time to prosecute someone for willful
and malicious assaultive behavior *IF* that is what occurred.
>
>THE POLICE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH YOUR TAX MONEY
I disagree, especially if the facts prove he acted with malice.
>
>
>>
>> Nor does it matter IF Mr. House intended to strike Sheff or not, he did.
>
>what? so in your world, the police should be brought into a full
>investigation even for accidental contacts? In which case, please send them
>to my house, I bumped into more than a dozen people every time I visited
>Fenway Park.
Did you bump them deliberately in an effort to harm them or interfere
with their activity?? Or did you accidentally bump them?? If you want
to plead the fifth I will understand:-)
>
>
>>
>> Think of it this way, IF you are driving down the street and say you drop
>> your cell phone. You bend down to pick it up, and while doing so you
>> strike and kill a small child. Should you not be arrested for vehicular
>> manslaughter?? I mean granted you not "intend" to hit and kill that small
>> child. Yet that would be the outcome of your actions. . .
>
>
>Of course you should you melonhead. Why are you being so obtuse. You are
>just making my whole point. Well, you're making my point and also being
>stupid because
>
>1) not driving with due attention is already a crime, for just such an
>eventuality
But what if someone drives without due attention and does not kill
someone? How about someone just recklessly driving, weaving all over
the road. According to you if they don't hit anyone then the police
should not get involved. They should only get involved *AFTER* someone
gets hurt or killed and not waste their time with someone who is just
weaving all over and not hurting anyone.
>2) manslaughter is a term for when you kill someone but withour prior intent
>(or something like that)
>
>
>manslaughter was not committed.
I don't think he is being charged with manslaughter melonhead.
Hopefully he is being charged with a crime for which there is
convincing evidence that he is guilty.
> MINOR contact was made, of which the
>intention was highly debatable and far from conclusive.
Perhaps the evidence that you don't personally have would make it more
conclusive.
>It's been dealt
>with. No child has been killed. NO ONE WAS HURT.
Yep. Let's wait til someone is killed before arresting drunk drivers.
Let them speed, let them run red lights, let them run stop signs as
long as no one is hurt since we don't want to waste the time of the
police.
>The police have no business getting involved in the Sheffield-House incident
>
>NO BUSINESS. AT ALL.
The police's business is arresting people who commit crimes. If there
is evidence that someone has committed a crime and the police ignore
then they are not doing their job. Sadly that happens more often than
not and you want to happen even more.
John Fariss
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> news:ojof615gnfqe1pr07...@4ax.com:
>
> >
> > Lee makes a big deal out of how quickly his arm was moving. I am not
> > suggesting that House was trying to knock Sheffield out. I *am*
> > suggesting that he *may* have deliberately trying to interfere with
> > Sheffield while he was fielding the ball. He clearly *did* interfere
> > with Shef. The only question is whether there is good evidence that
> > this interference was intentional. That would require witness
> > testimony. None of us are privy to statements made by witnesses AFAIK.
> >
> > Perhaps we will hear from these witnesses either in the media or in
> > the courtroom. Stay tuned.
> >
> > RC
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > Go Sox!!
> > Defending 2004 World Champions
> >
>
>
> At this point that is all we can do, wait and see what happens.
>
> I agree with you that that at the very least Mr. House was attempting to
> interfere with Sheff doing his job. Which at the time was to keep the Red
> Sox from winning, or at the very least to limit the number or runs that
> the Red Sox were able to score.
If, indeed, Sheffield wanted to limit the number of runs why didn't he get
the ball back in before shoving the fan?
>
> And as I recall it has been stated in other articles that there is a
> clause in the paperwork for season ticket holders (and I would imagine
> that it is probably also on ALL tickets) that interfering with a ball taht
> is still in play is grounds for removal as well as the revoktion of one's
> seasons tickets and/or banning from owning season tickets in the future.
>
> So on those grounds alone the Red Sox management is within their rights to
> revoke Mr. House' tickets.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBQmg6rx/i52nbE9vTEQLkDgCgm2UmRhnpC+BPa/5qtz05iyhrXaYAoJhb
> MWJgG3TVZh7z8wsOcKum4ebL
> =L6ua
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
Because his first priority was his safety and well being. That is why
he shoved the person who hit him. It happened in a split second. It is
not the kind of situation that comes up very often. He did not know
what was going on so he reflexively shoved the guy. Sounds reasonable
to me.
If the jerk did not hit him he could have thrown the ball to the
infield without a problem. And that is how it ought to have been. It
was clearly fan interference. What are the rules about fan inference??
Is it the ump's discretion as to whether the interference allowed
runners to advance further than they could have otherwise??
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
>Yep, and just because one (in this instant) fan behaved as a jerk is NO
>reason for Yankee fans to behave as jerks the next time the Red Sox are
>playing in NY.
Yankee fans don't need a reason to behave like jerks. It seems to come
naturally:-))
There, that feels much better. I don't think I could have tolerated
agreeing with a Yankee fan for much longer:-)))
Having gotten that off my chest, I suggest that the Yankees get extra
security for the next Sox series. I think the Yankee fans are still
reeling from suffering one of the worst collapses in post season
history and combined with their anger at what the Red Sox fans did to
Sheffield, all bets are off.
John Fariss
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> And rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com opened up and revealed to the world
> Hey Richard, aren't we breaking some "law of nature" by having a Red Sox
> and a Yankee fan agreeing???
>
> That said well said, also how was Sheff to know that when he attempted to
> throw the ball back into play that said fan wouldn't have tried to grab
> his arm thus fouling his throw?
Duh.
Reasonable?
Wouldn't it be reasonable to disengage oneself from the fan in order to get
rid of the ball instead of reaching a row into the stands and shoving
someone while still in possession of the ball?
>
> Yep, and just because one (in this instant) fan behaved as a jerk is NO
> reason for Yankee fans to behave as jerks the next time the Red Sox are
> playing in NY.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBQmhfFx/i52nbE9vTEQIk8QCg4F/RTXxQzxEnixxFh5KtEiz6h2IAnjJc
> L1OrltdlZ6vIbZ5NvYsbWfzw
> =hRNG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
That might have been reasonable too. Of course, the "fan" may have hit
him while he was throwing the ball back. The shove took care of that.
Of course if you were playing right field I am sure you would have
handled it perfectly:-)))
McDuck
quacked:
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:00:50 GMT, "BadgerBC"
><neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is the last time a player will approach
>>a rowdy crowd. And the best policy IMO is to make the rule and enforcement
>>clear that it dissuades them even from contemplating it.
>
>I completely agree that it is important to set rules to dissuade
>players from assaulting fans. However I think it also important not to
>dissuade players from exercising good judgement and self defense when
>hit.
>
>I completely disagree with some who say that under no circumstances
>should a player hit a fan. We saw a rare example of when it was
>appropriate IMO. Players have a right to defend themselves, bottom
>line. At the second Shef was hit he did not know whether the hitting
>would continue so he shoved the jerk back and went about his business.
>He did NOT as one person said, take two steps forward to make the
>shove. He was right at the seats when it happened which is why House
>was able to make contact with him.
>
I guess I can agree that "no circumstances" is a little too strong. I
can imaging when striking a fan in the stands (we are not discussing
fans on the field) might be okay, but the situation is really unlikely
to ever arise in practice. Certainly I would not condone violence by
Shef in the circumstances he found himself in. If he had gone back and
hit the guy, I think 30 days would be the starting discussion of a
penalty.
It is really important for the players ***not*** to defend themselves
when there is a reasonable alternative --- being defended by the
security force. And security was on the ball this time. when fans take
shots at fans, the reaction is likely to be violence. The point of an
anti-violence rule is to limit violence. It is nuts to think that the
players can deter violence from fans by punching out fans.
--McDuck
gclark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
<Snip>
> Lee,
>
> In a thread in another NG related to this topic it has come out that Mr.
> House has a history of such disruptive behavior. Businessmen are afraid
> to give business associates their tickets because of Mr. House' actions.
> They are also afraid for children around Mr. House when he is drinking at
> ball games. People have written letters to the management of the Red Sox
> about his actions. It was reported in one post that he had a number of
> empty beer cups stacked in front him I believe early in a game by another
> fans daughter.
>
How about a link.
> So it sounds to me as IF it is/was only a matter of time before he came
> into contact with a player, regardless of the reasons or the amount of
> contact.
>
> Then by your statements last year when two of the Yankees had a scuffle
> with a Boston groundskeeper the police had no business getting involved in
> that either.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBQmg9qR/i52nbE9vTEQLOjQCfazCetsQE9shz401rhgB5KcqhmaQAmwef
> EGAi0IMbvPQHMrqCujyhbrEV
> =d8dL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-Glen
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:13:52 -1000, rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com
>quacked:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:00:50 GMT, "BadgerBC"
>><neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think this is the last time a player will approach
>>>a rowdy crowd. And the best policy IMO is to make the rule and enforcement
>>>clear that it dissuades them even from contemplating it.
>>
>>I completely agree that it is important to set rules to dissuade
>>players from assaulting fans. However I think it also important not to
>>dissuade players from exercising good judgement and self defense when
>>hit.
>>
>>I completely disagree with some who say that under no circumstances
>>should a player hit a fan.
>> We saw a rare example of when it was
>>appropriate IMO. Players have a right to defend themselves, bottom
>>line. At the second Shef was hit he did not know whether the hitting
>>would continue so he shoved the jerk back and went about his business.
>>He did NOT as one person said, take two steps forward to make the
>>shove. He was right at the seats when it happened which is why House
>>was able to make contact with him.
>>
>I guess I can agree that "no circumstances" is a little too strong.
Great. Now we are getting somewhere.
> I
>can imaging when striking a fan in the stands (we are not discussing
>fans on the field) might be okay, but the situation is really unlikely
>to ever arise in practice.
Ah, but even though the fan was technically in the stands, his action
did occur on the field. That is the big problem with how the seats are
set up in Fenway in right field and what makes this an unusual
circumstance. Otherwise fans could sucker punch outfielders and think
they are safe because they are not on the field.
> Certainly I would not condone violence by
>Shef in the circumstances he found himself in.
You call it violence. I call it self defense. It occurred immediately
after he was assaulted and it was a shove.
>If he had gone back and
>hit the guy, I think 30 days would be the starting discussion of a
>penalty.
I agree with you. I already said he was wrong in going back and
cocking his fist. But he restrained himself so it is moot what the
penalty for hitting the "fan" at that point should be.
>
>It is really important for the players ***not*** to defend themselves
>when there is a reasonable alternative --- being defended by the
>security force.
But one can have a reasonable disagreement about whether there was a
reasonable alternative from the point of view of Shef. Obviously
security could not get there within a second or two of Shef being hit
and Shef had to make a decision about what to do in that period of
time.
It amazes me how many of you guys have so little empathy for a
ballplayer who in the process of doing his job, gets hit. He had so
little time to figure out what to do. His action was reflexive and
defensive in nature. He responded to an unexpected assault. Like I
said if it was Manny instead of Shef I would bet the farm that those
who are so critical of Shef would be applauding Manny for his action
and might even say the fan was lucky Manny did not clock him.
Now we can argue about the intent of House but the bottom line is
that he was hit while ON the field and he was well within his right to
shove the guy to avoid further assault. That is what the Baseball
commission determined. That is how every Red Sox player that I have
heard discuss the event saw it.
> And security was on the ball this time.
It was. But it could not possibly been on hand quick enough to deal
with the immediate event.
> when fans take
>shots at fans, the reaction is likely to be violence. The point of an
>anti-violence rule is to limit violence. It is nuts to think that the
>players can deter violence from fans by punching out fans.
Strawman argument. No one thinks that players can deter violence by
punching out fans. The question is whether after Shef was hit while on
the field was it appropriate to give the fan a single shove. A single
shove in the context of the event is NOT violence. Spin it however you
want.
RC
>--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
>
>> I
>>can imaging when striking a fan in the stands (we are not discussing
>>fans on the field) might be okay, but the situation is really unlikely
>>to ever arise in practice.
>
>Ah, but even though the fan was technically in the stands, his action
>did occur on the field. That is the big problem with how the seats are
>set up in Fenway in right field and what makes this an unusual
>circumstance. Otherwise fans could sucker punch outfielders and think
>they are safe because they are not on the field.
No, I'm just saying that when a fan runs out onto the field and seems
to be attacking a player, the player has greater scope for action
because the fan is isolated, so action is not as likely to incite
further violence by other fans. And I certainly am not saying that a
fan should not be punished for hitting a player. Only that the
punishment should come from the club or the government, not from the
player.
>
>
>> Certainly I would not condone violence by
>>Shef in the circumstances he found himself in.
>
>You call it violence. I call it self defense. It occurred immediately
>after he was assaulted and it was a shove.
Self defense, if that is what it was, is also violence. So call the
violence whatever you want. <g> It looked more like a swing than a
shove to me, so I think it is a bit unclear what it was. I would have
preferred it not happen. But I'm not highly critical of Shef for the
shove/hit. As I indicated, I just would not praise him for his
conduct.
<snip>
>>
>>It is really important for the players ***not*** to defend themselves
>>when there is a reasonable alternative --- being defended by the
>>security force.
>
>But one can have a reasonable disagreement about whether there was a
>reasonable alternative from the point of view of Shef. Obviously
>security could not get there within a second or two of Shef being hit
>and Shef had to make a decision about what to do in that period of
>time.
>
I'd punish Shef if he did something unreasonable even if he felt he
was in danger, etc. I would not punish him, under the facts as I know
them, for the "shove". But the test for players has to have an
objective content or the rule will not work.
>
> It amazes me how many of you guys have so little empathy for a
>ballplayer who in the process of doing his job, gets hit. He had so
>little time to figure out what to do. His action was reflexive and
>defensive in nature. He responded to an unexpected assault. Like I
>said if it was Manny instead of Shef I would bet the farm that those
>who are so critical of Shef would be applauding Manny for his action
>and might even say the fan was lucky Manny did not clock him.
I was not highly critical of Shef. I did expect, from what I
understood to be the facts, that he'd get a short suspension. But MLB
found the facts differently from what they appeared to me. I have no
problem with that, as the facts were not all that clear to me. I doubt
that Manny would behave in the aggressive style that Shef did. But if
he did, I would not applaud him. Nor would I be highly critical ---
I'd treat him the way I'm treating Shef.
>
> Now we can argue about the intent of House but the bottom line is
>that he was hit while ON the field and he was well within his right to
>shove the guy to avoid further assault. That is what the Baseball
>commission determined. That is how every Red Sox player that I have
>heard discuss the event saw it.
The RS players did not see it. We saw it a lot bettter than they did
fromthe TV. And we are not talking about "rights." Shef may be legally
entitled to defend himself (not clear from the facts), but he still
could be punished for not following the league rule of not retaliating
against fans for (almost) any reason.
>
>
>> And security was on the ball this time.
>
>It was. But it could not possibly been on hand quick enough to deal
>with the immediate event.
>
No, it did it fine. there was no immediate threat. That part of the
story is pretty clear. Shef went back to "shove" the fan when he
should have been playing the ball.
>
>> when fans take
>>shots at fans, the reaction is likely to be violence. The point of an
>>anti-violence rule is to limit violence. It is nuts to think that the
>>players can deter violence from fans by punching out fans.
>
>Strawman argument. No one thinks that players can deter violence by
>punching out fans. The question is whether after Shef was hit while on
>the field was it appropriate to give the fan a single shove. A single
>shove in the context of the event is NOT violence. Spin it however you
>want.
>
Sorry if it is a straw as to you. I did not mean to misrepresent your
position. But this issue has been discussed by many who think that it
is important that the players be able to take action to discourage
action by the fans. If we agree that the players should not sact for
that reason, all to the good.
--McDuck
Lee Harris
see the difference between minor contact that looks almost certainly like it
was not intentional, and drink driving in terms of use of police time then
there is no hope for you
if you also think that by not investigating this matter, then we are somehow
"waiting for someone to get killed" before it does, you are also stupid.
In addition, how the flying fuck does investigating some dweeb whose hands
went over the railings for "misdemeanour" work in preventing some sicko who
went to the park to kill someone? What, he decides not to murder someone,
because in his sane and reasonable mind, he'd better not as Chris House was
charged with misdemeanour!
Whatever, I'm out of this thread, and you guys are killfiled. Do the same to
me. You're all mentally ill.
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
<wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Self defense, if that is what it was, is also violence.
I give up. Having a discussion with many of you guys here is really an
exercise in futility.
One day McDuck is walking down the street and some guy comes up to him
with a knife trying to rob him. McDuck is able to prevent the robbery
and possible killing by using physical force against the potential
robber. Conclusion: McDuck perpetrated violence against the guy.
Now before you get all bent out of shape I fully realize that the
"fan" did not have a knife. I was specifically referring to your
assertion that self defense is violence. Play with words all you want
in an effort to make Sheffield the villain. Fortunately the baseball
commission and the REd Sox as a whole are able to see that Sheffield
exercised self defense when he was hit by a likely drunken fan with a
long history of antisocial behavior if the scuttlebutt about House is
true.
RC
John Doherty
rchrdc...@NOTyahoo.com wrote:
> One day McDuck is walking down the street and some guy comes up to
> him with a knife trying to rob him. McDuck is able to prevent the
> robbery and possible killing by using physical force against the
> potential robber. Conclusion: McDuck perpetrated violence against
> the guy.
Well, that conclusion would be a simple statement of fact. That you
(apparently) don't happen to like the word "violence" being used that
way doesn't make it incorrect.
> I was specifically referring to your assertion that self defense is
> violence.
It often is. If I shoot and kill someone in self-defense, that is an
act of violence (and homicide). It's justifiable violence, but
violence all the same.
> Play with words all you want
It seems to me that you're the one doing that here.
--
gclark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> news:G9CdnRcsPas...@gwi.net:
> you to go to alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees, but I'm not a "mean" type of
> person. So here is the Google link to the thread at
> alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees:
> (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees/browse_
> frm/thread/9906605250ff0765/19a4837aa676694a?q=house&rnum=2#19a4837aa676694
> a)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> K2BmDrSSKma20rEcgxYZu22D
> =H4Tw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Your link doesn't work.
--
-Glen
gclark
<snip>
>
> Richard,
>
> I don't think that anyone could have put it any better then you just did.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBQmmH4B/i52nbE9vTEQJCeQCePYXWTsNnh52bytb8bsGes/z9HG8AnjDB
> p38kwzuTX3czoirVl1wMRVqA
> =JzGN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
You two should just get a room.
--
-Glen
rchrdc...@notyahoo.com
wrote:
>> alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees:
>> > (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees/bro
>> > wse_frm/thread/9906605250ff0765/19a4837aa676694a?q=house&rnum=2#19a4837
>> > aa676694a)
>> >
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > Version: PGP 8.0.3
>> >
>> > iQA/AwUBQmmG9h/i52nbE9vTEQIaGACg9dJTgrk7sk/kDyABk8q2BWpwkwEAmwd1
>> > K2BmDrSSKma20rEcgxYZu22D
>> > =H4Tw
>> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >
>> >
>> Your link doesn't work.
>
>Did you try clicking on just a portion of it, or did you cut and paste it
>into the address bar? Because I just cut and pasted it into the address
>bar, and it worked fine for me.
I tried cutting and pasting and it did not work for me either. Can you
go to www.tinyurl.com and convert the long URL that works for you to a
tiny form and repost it??
Thanx,
gclark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> And gclark <gcl...@noneya.net> opened up and revealed to the world
> into the address bar? Because I just cut and pasted it into the address
> bar, and it worked fine for me.
>
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> u3lyzjsxo3OJtqKRlbtZQb+5
> =SYCt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Both.
--
-Glen
gclark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> news:u41l611hfluun9udp...@4ax.com:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:08:56 GMT, "Digital_Cowboy" <nob...@nobody.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees:
>>>>
>>>>>(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees/
>>>>>bro
>>>>>wse_frm/thread/9906605250ff0765/19a4837aa676694a?q=house&rnum=2#19a4
>>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>Version: PGP 8.0.3
>>>>>
>>>>>iQA/AwUBQmmG9h/i52nbE9vTEQIaGACg9dJTgrk7sk/kDyABk8q2BWpwkwEAmwd1
>>>>>K2BmDrSSKma20rEcgxYZu22D
>>>>>=H4Tw
>>>>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your link doesn't work.
>>>
>>>Did you try clicking on just a portion of it, or did you cut and paste
>>>it into the address bar? Because I just cut and pasted it into the
>>>address bar, and it worked fine for me.
>>
>>I tried cutting and pasting and it did not work for me either. Can you
>>go to www.tinyurl.com and convert the long URL that works for you to a
>>tiny form and repost it??
>>
>>Thanx,
>>
>>RC
>>
>>-------------------------------------------
>>-------------------------------------------
>>
>>Go Sox!!
>>Defending 2004 World Champions
>
>
>
> Here it is as a tiny URL:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9sj53
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> FXPPHMBRuoUo+l5dWtz1FK53
> =I57+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Thanks.
--
-Glen