Dein erstes Forum » ndard they have set to this point in the

TSN Baseball Analyst Steve Phillips answers several questions surrounding the game each week. This weeks topics include the after-effects of a 19-inning game, the future of pitchers wearing helmets on the mound, the importance of waivers and the trade deadline, and the election of new commissioner Rob Manfred. 1) The Blue Jays got swept in Seattle immediately following a club record seven-hour, 19-inning game. Do epic affairs like the one between Toronto and Detroit on Sunday take a long-term toll on teams? One thing I know for certain is that not every win or loss is equal. Some wins are more energizing than others while some losses are more devastating. There is no doubt to me that losing a 19-inning game feels like more than a loss, just as winning that game feels like more than a win. Players want to be rewarded with victories for good play. When a game goes 19 innings the likelihood is that both bullpens pitched extremely well and the teams played solid defence. Every extra pitch is an investment physically, mentally and emotionally. Each extra inning take out a chunk of flesh from the team. The deeper the game goes, the more invested the teams are and the more critical it is to win. A 19-inning game taxes the depth of bullpen. It can wipe out the staff for several days or longer. A loss like that to a direct playoff competitor is even more damaging because it is a double loss: a loss for us and a win for them. Coming to the ballpark the day after an extra-inning game like that is a challenge for the loser. Fatigue is an issue but so is the emotional letdown of the loss. The feeling that the hard work and toughness shown the night before just didnt matter is a hurdle to overcome. Veteran leadership and the leadership of the manager and coaches are critical in these games. I always liked when my manager played the toughest lineup in games after a long extra-inning affair. I wanted the grinders in the lineup. I would give up talent for grit in this situation. I also wanted my manager to be extremely aggressive early in the game. Force things to happen. Start runners to stay out of double plays. Steal bases. Attack. Take the extra base. The players to need charge ahead and not dwell on the previous nights disappointment. At the end of every season teams can look back at critical games and see turning points in their season. You dont always know which games are key games until the end. But it is pretty apparent that Sundays 19-inning win by Toronto could be one of the most critical games of the season. The Blue Jays won, but the victory seemed to come at a cost since it sucked the life out of the team as they headed to Seattle and proceeded to lose three straight. 2) Marlins pitcher Dan Jennings got an ugly line drive off the face this week. Does this incident put any extra heat on Major League Baseball to enforce protective headgear on the mound? Earlier this year Major League Baseball approved the use of protective padding in baseball caps for pitchers. The padding is made of plastic injection molded polymers combined with a foam substrate. The padding disperses and absorbs the energy of a balls impact. The padding is sewn into a regular baseball cap and it adds a half-inch of thickness to the front of the hat and an inch to the side. It also adds about seven ounces to the weight of the hat. Many pitchers have balked at wearing the hat because of the awkward and uncomfortable feel of the bulkier hat. In fact, to date only one major league pitcher, Alex Torres of the Padres, has worn the hat in a major league game and he was mocked by fans and broadcasters because of how the hat looks. There have now been 13 pitchers hit in the head by line drives in major league games over the last seven seasons. Fortunately no one has died. Remember it took the death of a minor league first base coach to get Major League Baseball to make it mandatory for base coaches to wear helmets. Do we really have to wait for a pitcher to die to make it mandatory for them to wear the protective hats? Are we really that vain that the goofy look of the hat is worth risking a life? It is time for Baseball to make the protective hats mandatory for pitchers. I just hope TSN doesnt make protective headgear mandatory for SportsCentre. I dont want to mess up my hair. 3) The Phillies Cole Hamels and Washington Nationals studs Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg were all claimed on waivers this week as their respective clubs looked to keep their August trade options open. Should the MLB just institute a hard trade deadline at the end of either July or August? Or, do you think the waiver process serves a valuable function in the market? So many people were surprised at the news that Cole Hamels, Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg were placed on waivers. I wasnt. I always ran all of my players through waivers during the month of August just as a practice. It didnt mean that I wanted to trade them necessarily. I would run stars through waivers with players I wanted to trade with the hope of camouflage them so teams wouldnt claim them. I also put players like Hamels, Strasburg and Harper on waivers to see who put claims in on them. You never know what ideas can be generated for off-season considerations by a team or teams making claims on players. I remember discussions at general manager meetings when the trade deadline dates were debated. Some GMs thought the date should be moved earlier while some thought it should be later. This reinforced to me that it was at the right time. I like the idea that every team has an equal opportunity to improve themselves by the non-waiver deadline of July 31. The waiver period allows every team the chance to improve but it gives the teams trailing in the standings a better chance for improvement and an opportunity to block teams ahead of them in the standings from making deals. I know that the second wild card has changed the trade deadline as more teams are buyers than in the past. This year provided one of the most interesting deadlines in the games history. I dont think the second wild card was added to allow teams to at some point declare they are out of the race at a date later than July 31. It was added to keep interest for more cities deeper in the season. The dates and system still work. I know baseball is slow to change, in so many ways, but this is one thing that I dont want to change. 4) Baseball owners have elected a new Commissioner. It is Rob Manfred, formerly the COO of MLB. The selection has been met with little enthusiasm as it is believed that he is part of Bud Seligs old guard and that we will continue to see the same old-school thinking that has chased young fans away from the game. I dont believe that it is true or fair to assume that Manfred will be the same as Selig. I was an assistant minor league director at one point and later became the minor league director. I made significant changes to the way things were done with the Mets farm system. I was the assistant General Manager at one point too and later became the GM. I was dramatically different from my predecessor even though I respected him immensely. Sometimes as an assistant you get the best on-the-job training where you learn what to do but also what not to do. As an assistant there were many times that I thought to myself, If I am ever in charge I would do this and not that. So lets give Manfred a chance to create his own identity. That being said he can have an instant impact. He needs to address Rule 7.13 about collisions at home plate. I am on the record as saying that I am in favour of the new collision rule at home plate. I think it is the right thing to protect the catchers from devastating collisions when they are in a vulnerable position. I like the idea that catchers cant block the plate without the ball and that base runners cant go out of their way to hit the catchers when they are not in front of home plate. The intent of the rule is fantastic but the enforcement of the rule has been a debacle. On Wednesday we had two plays at the plate in different games in which a runner was tagged out. In both situations the baserunners manager challenged the call claiming the catcher was blocking the runners pathway to the plate. The catchers in the two games just about duplicated each others movements. The challenge in the Giants/White Sox game led to the call being overturned and the Giants being awarded a run. In the Mets/Nationals game the call on the field stood and the Mets did not get a game-tying run. The exact same circumstances led to two different results. That is a problem. The way I see it is that there is an easy solution to the problem. Rule 7.13 states that: Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher, without possession of the ball, blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. The ambiguity of what the rule means by pathway of the runner is the problem. This is easily resolved however. There needs to be a clear and concise definition of allowable behaviour by a catcher. Here is the solution: A catcher is deemed to be blocking the pathway of the runner if either or both of his feet are in foul territory or on the third baseline. The catcher must keep both feet in fair territory to be deemed not in the pathway of the runner. Thats it. It is easy. The gray area that is confusing to umpires is what it means to block the pathway. When it is defined this way everyone knows what to look for and to expect. It shouldnt be this tough. Games have been decided by some of these calls. Games that could impact playoff berths. It has to stop. Clarify the issue now so everyone stops looking foolish. Come on Mr. Commissioner...FIX IT! Cheap Nike Shirts . Among the six changes: Drivers are now eligible if they have competed for 30 or more years in NASCAR or turned 55 in the calendar year before nominating day. Previously, drivers were not eligible until they had been retired for three years, so drivers can continue to compete and still reach the hall. Wholesale NFL Shirts .com) - Coming off a pair of tough losses last week, the Syracuse Orange will try to put an end to their first losing skid of the season when they pay a visit to the Maryland Terrapins at the Comcast Center on Monday night in Atlantic Coast Conference action. http://www.cheapshirtsfromchina.com/. I kept my eyes focused up on the camera during each approach. I just tried to stay focused on my form, as I didnt know what the ball reaction was. I was quite emotional at the end. I did not actually see any of the shots in the game until I got home and watched the video. NFL Shirts Outlet . -- Jimmie Johnson has a sixth NASCAR championship in hand and two legends within reach. Wholesale Shirts . - Jayden Hart scored once and set up two more as the Prince Albert Raiders downed the host Red Deer Rebels 5-3 on Tuesday to clinch the final Western Hockey League playoff berth.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca! Hi Kerry! I hope you saw that attempt by Joffrey Lupul to elbow Henrik Sedin in the head on Saturday, but missed and took out Nazem Kadri. I just wanted to find out if the NHL has a rule against attempts to injure players. Im sure a running elbow would be a concussion or something serious had Lupul hit his intended target. The refs are not doing enough to protect the players, this went uncalled! Thanks,Adrian Wong --- Hi Kerry, Been wondering about Joffrey Lupuls attempted elbow to the head of Henrik Sedin in the Canucks win over the Maple Leafs. Lupul clearly attempts to use his elbow to hit Sedin as he is flying by him. Sedin dodges it, and it takes a bad turn for the Leafs as he hits Kadri instead. With this, I have two questions: 1. Does Lupuls failure to hit Sedin clear him of everything, or does his obvious attempt to injure stay with him? 2. If it doesnt clear him, why is this hit not being looked at by the league, especially with Lupul having a previous suspension? Thanks,Ben Arends --- Hi Kerry,I was watching the Leafs-Canucks game and completely missed this occurrence. I couldnt believe that this attempt at Sedin was not even brought up by most news operations. Even though Lupul didnt connect, should this attempt to elbow Sedins head not be a suspension or at least be reviewed? To me, it clearly looks like Lupul was attempting to head Sedin in the head. Yes, he didnt connect, but the attempt to connect was there. I would be interested in your thoughts. Jay --- Hi Kerry, In the Toronto/Vancouver game Saturday, Lupul extends his elbow with the intent of hitting Henrik Sedin. Henrik luckily ducks out of the way and Lupul ends up elbowing Kadri instead. Yes, it was a very amusing outcome (perhaps not for Kadri), but this makes me question why the NHL does not use rule 21.1 (Match Penalty) to punish these types of plays when it is clear that Lupuls intent was to strike Henrik Sedin in the head and only because Hank saw it coming, was it avoided. Seems to me like the NHL waits for a significant injury instead of ever punishing the intent. Can you explain this to me? Can you explain why we have a rule that allows refs to punish intent, but it never gets used? Thanks,Steve Platt Adrian, Ben, Jay and Steve: We have another full mail bag today on a potentially very dangerous play. This time we examine Joffrey Lupuls deliberate flying elbow intended for Henrik Sedins head. The forceful elbow narrowly missed the mark but instead caught Lupuls teammate Nazem Kadri flush in the kisser. No call was made on the ice. First, let me offer my perspective concerning the lack of a penalty being assessed on the play (video link). In most cases there needs to be some form of contact for the Referee to assess a penalty. I can therefore understand why one wasnt forthcoming on this play. Elbowing, kneeing and most other fouls come to mind where a narrow miss becomes a non-event and therefore not worthy of a penalty. Slashing on the other hand is the act of a player swinging his stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not. Other exceptions to this standard of contact are when a player attempts to butt-end or spear his opponent. In these cases a double minor is assessed when no contact is made and a major plus game misconduct results from contact. In the previous two fouls a match penalty is assessed when injury results. The reasson for these applications is the inherent danger to a players safety when struck with a stick.dddddddddddd We also now recognize the potential for serious injury when an elbow cap is forcefully delivered to the head of an opponent. A number of suspensions have resulted from these types of illegal hits. In all cases the parameters and criteria change when an infraction is deemed to be an attempt to injure an opponent. In this particular situation, even with the absence of contact but given the deliberation and severity of the attempt Joffrey Lupul made to elbow Henrik Sedin in the head a different standard must apply. I want to specifically reference rule 45.4 which I believe should have been applied by the Officials at ice level; "The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by elbowing." The decision Joffrey Lupul made to leave his feet and fully extend his elbow at his opponents head was beyond just tremendously irresponsible but one he should know would result in some degree of injury to Sedin. Just because Sedin veered from his original path behind the goal and cut hard toward the front of the net does not excuse Lupuls subsequent actions with some separation as an attempt to simply make a check. The evidence here clearly demonstrates that Henrik Sedin narrowly avoided the intended contact to his head by looking down at the puck in his skates and thereby altering his head position. Lupul did not let up after missing Sedin and accidentally planted the elbow in the face of Nazem Kadri. Striking Henrik Sedin would have been no accident! I look at this play similarly to a player swinging a stick at the head of his opponent from close range but where no contact was made. Without question I would assess a match penalty for "attempt to injure." I would hope every Referee would do the same. I recall giving Chris Knuckles Nilan a match penalty after assuming his position in the penalty box following a fight, then grabbing a puck out of the bucket and throwing it at his opponent seated in the visitors penalty box. The puck missed Knucks intended target but it was still an attempt to injure! The Player Safety Committee on the other hand has a more challenging task to suspend a player where no contact or adverse result occurred given the standard they have set to this point in their deliberations. I can only imagine the fallout from a team and the NHLPA if a player was suspended without physical evidence of contact—the smoking gun. The primary objectives of supplemental discipline are to hold players accountable for poor and dangerous decisions in an effort to provide player safety and ultimately prevent future injuries. While proving "intent" can be a very difficult task, the overwhelming evidence on this play can only lead a reasonable thinking person to conclude that Joffrey Lupul fully intended on elbowing Henrik Sedin in the head. There have been many times that the Player Safety Committee has suspended a player where no injury resulted. I cant think of one situation where a player was suspended where contact with his opponent did not actually occur. The reality is that this play was likely judged in the same consistent fashion given the absence of physical contact. Any lack of supplemental discipline in cases such as this not only sends the wrong message but misses the intended target completely; namely to provide a future deterrent to a player committing an illegal and dangerous act where injury is likely to result. ' ' '