Don't tell ARod but Prince divorced the Toronto girl he was married to so I don't think he lives here anymore.

5) No rainouts.

6) No teammate will treat you as their b****. *cough*  Jeter  *cough*

7) If you struggle in a playoff series, the fans will be ecstatic to be there in the first place.

8) if, during said playoff series, one of your teammates blames their own struggles on "pressing to do more because A-Rod is not playing well" and if said teammate happens to be a steroid junkee, rest assured, you will not be the one villified.

9) If you slump, fans will ignore you instead of pestering you.

10) Whenever you come up to bat, you will be more pumped up because of Mike Langdon(I think that's his name) 's super-energetic intro. Unlike that dead guy in Yankee Stadium. 

 you will be more pumped up because of Mike Langdon

Ah, I think you mean the God foresaken Tim Langdon, famous for his pathetic Mexican accent and general annoyingness :)

Sorry NFH, but A-Rod can go to hell. What an asshole. I can't wait till the next time we face the Yanks, I hope it's a beanball fest. And I kind of wish we had emptied the dugout tonight, because if anything deserves a benches clearing brawl, it's horseshit like that. Fucking bush league.

What a smart play that was to win the game for the team.

(is the comment we'd hear if a Jay did that)

Obviously I can't speak for everybody, but my respect for ANYONE who pulls shit like this would immediately go down to 0. Luckily, I can't imagine anyone in our clubhouse pulling something like that, but if they did I'd be mad as hell.

King Ryan - It is arguably against the rules. Read'em. The umpires would have been well within their rights to call him out for interference.

And it's pathetic. And punk-ass. Shit, in our REC slo-pitch league, there's a rule explicitly mentioning verbal interference.

Anyone who thinks A-Rod's not a little punk is a fool.

Here it is, BTW, just to avoid the inevitable "no, it's not" snappy comeback:

"Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter- runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules."

IMO ... CLEARLY against the rules. There's a reason nobody does it. 'Cause it's cheating, not gamesmanship.

I'm going to cut Alex a bit of slack here.

Imagine he was on the front page of the NY Post with some big breasted bimbo. His wife's lawyer called his cell phone before the game and said "my client is suing for divorce and wants the country estate and $150 million."

The man is not of sound mind today and mighty angry at the world.

Its a ligitimet defense for his actions tonight.

Meanwhile ... lmao!

Seriously, if it was just "gamesmanship" or "clever", don't you think a few of the more clever players out of the thousands who've played MLB before now might have done that in that situation once or twice?? ... Ever hear about it before now? And some of those guys have liked cheating in all kinds of ways.

There's a couple of reasons for that. (a) Most players don't wanna establish new, never-before-reached levels of bein' a punk. (b) It's against the rules.

http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/23/i-got-it/

The Cheater's Guide seems to think it's illegal.

When I was umpiring youth ball, we were always taught to call the runner out on interference if he attempted something similar to what Rodriguez did tonight.  Mind you, when dealing with kids you need to apply the rules more strictly to avoid the game turning into a free-for-all, but any type of gamesmanship was not to be tolerated.  Sometime in the mid 90s the Ontario Baseball Association outlawed phantom tags entirely, and any player attempting one was to be ejected automatically (I haven't umpired competitive ball in about six or seven years, so whether that rule still stands or not I can't say).  That was to deal with the risk of injury more than gamesmanship per se, but I think there was a common understanding that umpires and coaches had a responsibility to teach players in their formative years the right and wrong way to play the game.  You hope that by the time they reach A-Rod's age they no longer need the assistance, but c'est la vie.

It's been an eventful visit to Toronto for Rodriguez.  I think his character was revealed long ago, but a couple of incidents have shone a light on it again, in case anyone needed reminding.

Someone show me where in the rule book it says 'no pretending to be the other teams shortstop' and I'll be anti-A-Rod on this too. 

It's true that nowhere in the rule book does it say that you have to play the game with class and dignity.  Still, most guys manage to do it anyway.

"Why not? There's no difference here.  You're trying to fool opposing players.  End of story.  No difference.  You guys are such sheep sometimes.  Forget the "code" and what you learned growing up and all that nonsense and use your brain here."

We're sheep for believing that was bush league? Give me a break. Don't attempt to patronize anybody here. That is complete and utter BS.

What ARod did would be frowned upon in any baseball league I've ever played in, and you can be damn sure the next guy up would be getting a ball right at him. I'm not using my brain, am I?

As previously stated, it is not only against the rules, but it is bush league.

It was probably "bush league" but I doubt that it is against the rules.  Actually, since it's not technically covered in the rule-book, it's only against the rules if the umpires say it is.  The balk rule is a good example.  The rule-book might say that the pitcher cannot "deceive the runner", but of course that's what every LHP is trying to do every time there's a guy on first--deceive him, catch him leaning, make him break for 2nd.  It's fair game to deceive, just not in specific ways--the pitcher's leg crossing the plane of the rubber, a start towards home, a bend of the left knee, etc.  Anything else is fair game. 

I'm also in agreement with John Northey that this is not that unlike many other scenarios we see in every game. I think what McDonald did on Cano's 2B to the corner is pretty much the same thing, just more common.  It's kind of "bush league" too, if you think about it.

   Setting aside the ethical questions about A-Rod's behavior, what do we think about Howie Clark's handling of the play?  Surely he shouldn't have fallen for such a simple ploy?    Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the replays it appears that A-Rod was almost at 3rd base when he shouted.  He had gone far past Clark when he shouted (or so it seems from Clark's reaction).  MacDonald, meanwhile, was on the shortstop side, therefore he was on Clark's opposite side.  So it seems that Clark heard a shout from the 3rd-base side and mistook it for MacDonald, even though there's no way that MacDonald would have been on the 3rd-base side of the play.  Of course there would have been crowd noise etc, and maybe Clark just got confused.  But my basic point is that we are pouring all of our blame on the evil A-Rod when actually it was a simple mistake by Clark, wasn't it? 

    Also, excuse my ignorance on this point, but Clark would have shouted "Mine" before A-Rod shouted, right?  Sorry for the very basic question, but if one fielder shouts first for a pop-up, why would he give way to another person who shouts some seconds later?    And between the 3B and the SS, is there any rule about who takes priority on an infleld pop-up?  And does another fielder -- watching two fielders converge on the ball -- have a responsibility to direct the play and make clear who is going to catch the ball?

I'm a little disapointed how many of you are okay with this.  There is a reason more guys don't do it.  It isn't a hard trick, it's not like stealing signs.  It's not so clever that no one has never thought of it before.  Why is Arod denying he said "mine!"? Because he knows it's cheap.  Everyone knows it's cheap.

And how is this Clark's fault?  His first big-league game of the season, he has never played with JMac.  The shortstop has priority and Clark hears "Mine!" and wants to do the right play.  Say it was Jmac, Clark doesn't pull off and there is a pile of infielders and then everyone goes "Wow, Clark's an idiot.  Why isn't he listening?"  And no, ARod doesn't pull this on Troy, not because Troy "wouldn't fall for it", but because Troy is respected in the league and because Troy would've gotten in his face.  The immediate recourse should have been a Giambi plunking, so Giambi becomes ARod's problem.  What a pathetic little man he is.

Did any of you who still don't think it's against the rules actually read the MLB rules section I posted? In what way does what A-Hole did not constitute confusing a defensive player trying to make a play? Did any of you actually read the post from Cheater's Guide to Baseball?

Wow. I mean, I know that practically every call in baseball is a judgment call, but is that your defence of the play? That, in your judgment, he did NOT confuse the thirdbaseman?

Again, wow.

"What is written in the rule book is irrelevant ..."

Hard to argue with that.

What A-Rod did was cheating and against the rules; it's also part of the game, like a lot of other types of cheating.  Should it be?  Well, no.  Should it have been enforced?  Sure, but the umpire's not likely to see it - or expect it.

Someone show me where in the rule book it says 'no pretending to be the other teams shortstop'

Rule 7.08(b).  A runner may not intentionally hinder a fielder from attempting to play a batted ball.  Period.

If getting rid of A-Rod's behavior was the end goal, a more effective way would have been to have taught pitchers to bean kids who pulled A-Rod's ploy or else have coaches bench players for doing so.

I hope you are kept far, far away from youth sports.

And "it's not a lie if I know the truth".  And it is  still cheating if you don't get caught.  The act is seperate from it's discovery!!   And he was caught, people called him on it immediately and it has now spread around.  Even if everyone doesn't agree that it was wrong, everyone has now seen the play.

I wonder why one of the best players in the league, who makes the most money and has the most HRs feels the need to stoop that low in a game his team is already winning in the ninth.  So little faith in Mo?  Someone should've Varitek'ed him.

I can't believe people are defending him.  Was the slap okay too?

Let's just let them do whatever they want to win.  They can juice up, and become huge, veiny monsters.  They can spike each other and slide dirty.  If they get mad, they can throw at each others heads.  Hitters, if they have a call go against them, they can charge the mound with their bats.  They can cork their bats, they can doctor the ball openly. Pitchers can keep their sandpaper and vaseline next to their rosin bags.  They can mess with the bases.

And then this game, which all of us love so much, becomes an obsolete joke.  But winning is the most important thing.

So it would have been ok if Clark had done this to A-Rod?  That's the only reason that I can see A-Rod's money and HR's being relevant to this discussion.

This is how it's relevant.  What is going through a guy's head that motivates him to feel the need to do little league cheap shot to win when he is the best player? The best player who has faith in himself hits a HR or makes a great fielding play to win.   And no, it would not be okay for Clark to do it to A-Rod.  If he did, I would say "that's why you were in the Minor Leagues." And he probably would have been called out for interference.

And if your faith in Mo guides the discussion, then why did the Yankees come to bat in the 9th at all?  They should have had complete faith in Mo, so there was no need to try and score any more runs.

It was their turn to hit, that's why.  And they had scored clean runs.  That completely isn't the issue.  I was merely questioning ARod's faith in Mo.

Craig, Joanna and VBF have it right, but AWeb's bolded text says it just perfectly.  Two of the dirtiest plays you'll ever see, and only one player -- a "face of the game"-type player who can coast into the toughest Hall of Fame in sports -- has the temerity to try it.

Phantom tags, high-and-tight pitches, dugout heckles, etc. are all foreseeable marginal plays.  This is unforeseeable, which is why it's so unacceptable.

Also, it is not true -- in law, in society, or in baseball -- that everything not specifically itemized as illegal is therefore legal and encouraged.  It's like the (factually inaccurate, mind you) argument that steroids were OK because they were "not outlawed" by baseball.  That doesn't make it clean, fair or appropriate.

If you defend this play, you must never have played baseball at even a high school level and you must not have watched baseball day-in and day-out for any significant number of years.  If either were true, you'd know why your opinion is insane.

I would hate it if a Blue Jay tried it.

4. Do not insult a player or front office employee. Take a deep breath after a tough game. Remember that no player is as bad as he looks in his worst game nor as good as he looks in his best. Posting that "Hinske sucks", or "I hate Koskie", or "Walker is a joke", makes YOU look bad. Remember that Batter’s Box is a site for intelligent baseball discussion: Knee jerk reactions don't meet that expectation.

5. Do not use profanity. Do not use inappropriate expressions such as "The Jays were raped", or "Hinske made an abortion of that play". Variations or abbreviations of profanity are not allowed - for example, STFU and F#$k are not allowed.

"The thing about the Yankees, one of the reasons they're so respected, is they do things right. Always have," manager John Gibbons said. "They've got a lot of pride and a lot of class. They play the game hard.  "That's not Yankee pride right there," he said. "That's not the way they play. I thought it was bush league." (AP)

Yes, I think he should make fabulous (and clean) plays to win ballgames. Examples include a homerun. Or a diving catch to prevent a ball going down the line.  I don't think he should make any kind of play to win a ballgame .  Dirty slides, slapping pitcher's hands and pretending to be a shortstop are few of the things I would prefer one of the best players in the league to not do.  Somtimes arguments are complex, and both sides need to be examined.

And this was addressed to all.  So sorry to have fatigued any of you.

With all due respect, MG and JN, this play was nothing like jumping over a batted ball or breaking-up a double play because those occur routinely.  They are "conventional" plays.  What A-rod did is against the rules and is not supported by convention.

The suggestion is that this play was bush-league and the proof of the pudding is in the eating - it's never occured in professional leagues, despite some insistence that it is acceptable.  The only leagues that this play would occur in is a "bush" league.  I think most ball-players have learnt over the years that verbal interference is not acceptable, whereas they have learnt that jumping over balls and breaking up double plays is.

I too have seen a player called "out" in a slo-pitch and in a little league game for yelling (not even "mine", just yelling) at a fielder attempting to field a ball.

I'm wondering if some of the posters defending Rodriguez are, perhaps, hockey fans first and baseball fans second.  It seems to me that the "do whatever you can as long as you don't get caught" way of playing is reflective of a hockey mentality.

So imagine that a hockey player carries a whistle on the ice and, at a key moment, blows it  - trying to fool his opponents into thinking play has been stopped.  He then takes the puck and shoots it on an unsuspecting goalie.  Similar?

Another issue to be addressed.  I have two sons (aged 11 and 12) who both play rep baseball.  I have coached one of them.  Many young ball players think that A-Rod is a great player - he has been one of my sons' favourites for years.  What kind of example does his play last night set for them?  This morning my son wanted to talk about what he had seen the night before and he told me he couldn't believe that Rodriguez would "go so low" (as he put it) as to do that.  He also referred to the few minutes shown on TV after the incident, where A-Rod stood on third smirking and, fairly clearly, saying to his third base coach "F*** 'em".

Classless (and totally unnecessary) move.  Probably against the (written) rules.  I would bench my son if he tried it.

SS and 2B taken out on slides aren't really comparable.  People slide it to second hoping to be safe, as long as they slide in such a way that they actually touch the bag it can be argued that they were just sliding in to second.

It can be argued that way, sure. But there are plenty of plays where the runner knows he's going to be out, and 99% of the reason for the slide is to interfere with the fielder.

Really the only question (content warning) ....was it horseshit? Not horseshit?

Matt Stairs says it was horseshit. Thank you, Matty.

A code is very different from a rule, though. The Rules say you can't use an aluminum bat or tamper with a ball. The Code says things like "Don't steal bases when you're up by 10 runs" or, according to Curt Schilling, "Don't break up no-hitters by bunting."

John Northey on Rule 7.08(b):

that is a rule that is routinely ignored. See second basemen being run over to prevent a double play, catchers run over regularly

Um, John? Those aren't batted balls. (Easy mistake to make, don't worry.)

You won't have ever seen a second baseman bowled over trying to field a grounder, or a catcher run into when trying to field a popup, precisely because it is illegal, and regularly called.

A batter who runs over or even impedes a catcher when the catcher is trying to field a bunt... he's called out (unless he's named Ed Armbrister). Incidentally, there is also another rule this can be called under, the definition of "offensive interference". I prefer the 7.08(b) remedy, which is clearer, but an umpire could legitimately call either in this situation.

I just found two video's of Arod running behind Howie on ballhype.com

One of them, has Matt Stairs in it , and is no longer avaliable?

The other, is here: 

http://ballhype.com/story/youtube_rodriguez_yells_mine/

Case 2: Let's reverse the situation. Clarke fools A-Rod into making the error. I wouldn't feel that bad about it.

Really? I'd feel worse about it than I do now. I don't expect anything of A-Rod, who has shown himself over and over to be deficient in moral fibre and entirely worthy of ridicule. Literally a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, as Dave so memorably noted above. But that's what I expect from someone with a nine-figure net worth : a moral vacuum. (Which is why the Carlos Delgados of this world are such a pleasant surprise).

But I expect a little more of ballplayers as a class, especially the Howie Clarks of the world. And I *certainly* expect more of players in the grey, black and blue, though I recognize that the Jays have no particular claim on virtue.

Elijah : I should add that I don't think what Rodriguez did is clearly prohibited by the rules of the game.  If the rules explicitly stated that if an offensive player verbally distracting or hindering a fielder from making a catch or play is forbidden, so be it.

One cannot intentionally hinder the fielder from making the play.  That's is, stark as can be, and umpires have no problem making that call at all levels of baseball - if the intention is to hinder the fielder, the ball is dead, the runner is out, the batter is out.

If you want to insist that 7.08(b) doesn't specifically say that non-contact hindrances are forbidden (they are and the casebooks would support this, but I don't have anything in front of me now), then one can look to the definition of offensive interference which prohibits a member of the offensive team from confusing the defensive team in the act of making a play.  But I don't like using offensive interference here, as it's a looser, catch-all type of concept that acts more like an anti-avoidance rule than a clear-cut rule like 7.08(b).

Why did Howie Clark move off the ball when he heard "mine!", even though the way to call off a fielder is to say "I got it"?

Why did Howie Clark move off the ball when he heard "mine!", even though the way to call off a fielder is to say "I got it"?

Because that's a meaningless distinction. Fielders say "mine" all the time and they all know what it means. In fact, I believe I yelled "mine" at you in an TBBL game about two weeks ago on a fly ball.

A superior of mine at work is an umpire and insists it wasn't interference because the rule does not prohibit verbal interference.

I think your friend the umpire is due for some remedial training.  Where in Rule 7.08(b) does it provide that the interference must involve physical contact?  A runner who simply stands in front of a fielder is just as guilty of interference as the runner who bowls over the fielder, despite the absence of physical contact.  If nothing else, last night was a good teaching moment - I guarantee that every umpire meeting in every league across North America will be discussing this play over the next few weeks.  I wish I was still umpiring in Brampton to hear what Norm Cadorin would have had to say about it - and I especially wish the great Dave Dash was still with us and able to share his thoughts.

Way to make a comeback Named for Hank, your first thread in a long while and it goes over 115 posts. Your timing is um impecable. ;-)

Anyway, everyones all caught up in the rule book and morals, standards of fairplay.

To me everything, or virtually everything on this thread that is post incident is not relevant.

Alex is just one angry man. This had nothing to do with his comptetive juices. It had everything to do with his mental make-up on the day he was on the front page with a female other than his wife. A-Rod was angry at the world and just wanted to bring additional misery. So he lashed out.

Thats all there is to it.

I

Really the only question (content warning) ....was it horseshit? Not horseshit?

I'm with Matt!

But as George Jr. would say...

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Boss, not friend the umpire. He says it's a judgement call in that rule, and that every other umpire would make the same call. Apparently it's only to be called if the runner is in front of the fielder, not behind him - such as raising his arms and screaming at him to confuse him.

This doesn't follow - if it's a judgement call, then by definition not every umpire would make the same call.  I'd also like to see him explain where in 7.08(b) or in the accompanying commentary there is any justification for the claim that the interference has to take place in front of the fielder.  Since the rulebook makes no such distinction, what is the logical case for this interpretation?  If Rodriguez had grabbed Clark by the back of the neck as he ran by, is your boss saying that no interference would have occured, as Rodriguez would have been behind him at the time of contact?

"It can be argued that way, sure. But there are plenty of plays where the runner knows he's going to be out, and 99% of the reason for the slide is to interfere with the fielder."

Actually I think most of the time they slide to avoid getting beaned right between the eyes with the throw. At least that's why I'd slide.

"Alright that's enough fighting, let's all go for a beer.  The Doctor returns in 2 hours..."

Did somebody say "BEER" :)

Good idea, we all need a break.

Two points. 

The NCAA rules specifically address verbal interference, the MLB rules do not..

Someone upthread said you don't see this in other sports. That's completely false.  It happens quite frequently in major league soccer, basketball and hockey.  In hockey opposing players yell "point' and "open" and "here" to get the puck and also bang their stick on the ice to get the puck from an opposing player, and similar tactics are used in the other sports to get an opposing player to pass the ball to you.

He broke an unwritten rule, not a written rule.  If the umps choose to change their interpretation of the existing rule, so be it.  But it will sure be hard to enforce unless they are sure what was said and who said it.

    Okay, so now we think it's ethical to deliberately injure an opposing player because we don't like something he shouted in the 9th inning of a close game?   If it's unethical for A-Rod to do what he did, surely it is even more unethical to deliberately injure him.

   And if A-Rod's conduct was such a blatant violation of the rules, why is it that some other AL managers don't see it as such a terrible thing?   Here is an excerpt from Bastian's story on MLB.com today:

  White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen had a completely different take on the situation, going as far as praising A-Rod's shout. Guillen found humor in the incident and added that he'd tell his players to do the same thing.

"I thought it was funny. I never thought somebody at the big-league level would do that," Guillen said. "Believe me, I think it's a good play. People on the Toronto side, they're mad. They should be, but I would've laughed. I would've laughed at my players if something happened to them like that.

"Good play for you, Alex. Good for you, not good for them," he added with a laugh. "I'm going to tell my players, if we need to win a game, make sure when the third baseman goes to catch the ball we say something to him."

Uh, China Fan?

Consider the source. 

"It's a courtesy opponents extend to you so you don't do it to them. I know guys want to win. Believe me, there's a lot of stuff you can do that's accepted. But if there's a popup on the infield, I'd rather not say a word and lose than try to do something unprofessional so the guy drops it. I'd rather just play the game out and see what happens." - Todd Jones

I guess he just ain't as competitive as Rodriguez or Guillen. :-/ ...