Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Up until recently, I would say that if I could make one change to baseball it'd be to get rid of the designated hitter. I don't agree with the DH and I think both leagues should play by the same rules, but the point of this post is not to argue about the DH. It's like arguing about religion. You have your side based on what you believe and the other guy has his side based on his beliefs. Neither side will end up converting the other simply because their arguments are based on beliefs that the other side finds bogus.
But once again, I've strayed too far off point. The point of this post is that the DH wouldn't be the first thing I would change in baseball if I would be able to. It'd probably be the second, though. The first thing I would change would involve bench-clearing brawls in baseball. My new rules would eliminate almost entirely all fights and they have precedent in other sports. The changes would go: 1) if a fight breaks out, anyone in the dugout stays in the dugout. If a player leaves the dugout and even goes near the fight, he's automaticly suspended for at least the next game. No appeals, either, so he can't use the appeals process to push the suspension to a game of his choice. 2) keeping players on the bench means that when a fight breaks out, it will be nine against one (or two, three or four if there are base runners). So I say, anyone who isn't in the fight area when the fight starts, stays out of the area. Anyone who comes within 20 feet or so of a fight also gets ejected and suspended. The measurement being a judgement call on the ump. 3) third man in a fight gets ejected and ten game suspension. Same goes for the fourth man in and the fifth... Trying to break up the fight will not be an excuse to joining the fight. The umps and the coaching staffs will be charged with breaking up the fight. You don't see hockey players storming out of their bench during a fight. There's a reason for it. The penalty is just too great. Anytime there are guys playing physical sports with great passion, there'll be fights. It can't always be stopped, but they can be kept from turning into 20+ people battle royals that cause injuries, lengthen games, and just plain aren't entertaining.
But once again, I've strayed too far off point. The point of this post is that the DH wouldn't be the first thing I would change in baseball if I would be able to. It'd probably be the second, though. The first thing I would change would involve bench-clearing brawls in baseball. My new rules would eliminate almost entirely all fights and they have precedent in other sports. The changes would go: 1) if a fight breaks out, anyone in the dugout stays in the dugout. If a player leaves the dugout and even goes near the fight, he's automaticly suspended for at least the next game. No appeals, either, so he can't use the appeals process to push the suspension to a game of his choice. 2) keeping players on the bench means that when a fight breaks out, it will be nine against one (or two, three or four if there are base runners). So I say, anyone who isn't in the fight area when the fight starts, stays out of the area. Anyone who comes within 20 feet or so of a fight also gets ejected and suspended. The measurement being a judgement call on the ump. 3) third man in a fight gets ejected and ten game suspension. Same goes for the fourth man in and the fifth... Trying to break up the fight will not be an excuse to joining the fight. The umps and the coaching staffs will be charged with breaking up the fight. You don't see hockey players storming out of their bench during a fight. There's a reason for it. The penalty is just too great. Anytime there are guys playing physical sports with great passion, there'll be fights. It can't always be stopped, but they can be kept from turning into 20+ people battle royals that cause injuries, lengthen games, and just plain aren't entertaining.
Comments:
Post a Comment
