Tiger's Catcher Shoves Umpire

I was watching the play on TV, and from the center field camera, it looked like the ball tipped the end of Ishii's bat as Yano claimed. From the camera behind home plate, I couldn't see how the bat could have gotten near the ball as it was a check swing at a ball in the dirt. I believe that the home plate umpire figured it took an odd bounce off the corner of the plate.

In support of the bad bounce theory, Ishii immediately backed up and motioned for the runners to advance on the past ball. That would have to be a fantastic acting job if he felt the ball hit the bat and started motioning to the runners to advance without skipping a beat. His comment after the game was "No comment."

I was surprised that Yano was the only one ejected from the game. The third base coach (I think) came in and shoved the umpire harder than Yano did (and Yano got a good strong thrust on the umpire's chest). I heard on the radio that Yano was given a one game suspension (today's game), and there may be a fine, but I didn't get that detail.

On the play, two runners came across as Yano didn't even moved to get the past ball. Ishii, who drew a walk, ran to first after motioning the runners to come around, and took second before Yano got himself ejected (and the ball called dead).

The entire Hanshin team had the umpire surrounded, and it looked like a fan was on the field as well. After a very long delay cause by the argument, Okada-kantoku came back out and argued that Yano was tossed before Ishii got to first base, so he should go back to first. The umpires got together again, discussed it, and Ishii stayed at second. (I don't think Hanshin was going to get any leniency after the attack of an umpire.)

Despite taking the lead back in the next half inning, Hanshin's defense quickly dissolved into what looked like one of the C-ranked high schools at Koshien and Yokohama ran away with the game thereafter.

Listening to the Giants vs. Carp game tonight on the radio, one of the announcers (a former ball player) said that the problem was with the umpires. If the umpires would call the game right, then there wouldn't be any such trouble. And back in his day, they did a lot worse to the umpires without even being ejected. The main announcer commented that the year started off with Davidson's umpiring in the WBC and has steadily gotten worse.

I think that each league has hit double digits in ejected players/managers this year now. That shows that the umpires are finally starting to stand up for themselves, which I think is good. Yano and that coach that came over and shoved the umpire should both be given longer suspensions. Unfortunately, I think that the people who make such decisions feel it was a bad call and didn't want to punish Yano and the Tigers too harshly for it. They still have a ways to go.

I saw some replay of the event with commentary on last night's TV, and was also stunned by how vehemently Yano and the Tiger coaches bounced around the ump - something that, I believe, would have been a bigger issue in MLB. But I could connect with Yano's frustration over a call that the ump should have seen, obviously did not, and got dead wrong. Agreed that the players need to treat the umps with respect - and that the umps need to do a professional job, too.

The umpires getting tough would be a good thing if they were competent enough to do their job. The thing is they are not, and there have been so many of these problems this season. The reason for the ejections is that more players and coaches are getting angrier about the incompetence displayed by the umpires. A certain amount of petulant unprofessionalism is also present in the umpiring organization. If a decision is made and queried, the umpire does not look at it but adopts an attitude of "I'm the umpire - I made the decision - no one should question me." This kind of approach does not encourage respect.

Umpiring is a difficult job which requires players respect. Decisions like this do not earn it, and an inability to admit a fault does not earn the respect of players. Yano received a slap on the wrist (a one game ban) which shows how justified the authorities felt he was.

Also, one must question Ishii's attitude in all this. If he hit the ball (and the evidence indicates that he did) then he cheated quite badly. His behaviour is worse for the game than Yano's.

It's nice to see controversial plays that don't involve the Giants for a change!

In this kind of play, where the pitch is low, the plate ump is screened from the play by the catcher's body, and pretty much his only recourse to determine foul or not is to listen for the ball hitting the bat. If he doesn't hear it, he probably won't call it foul. If one of the other umpires immediately runs in and says, "wait, wait, wait the batter hit it," "it was foul," etc., the plate ump is saved. If this doesn't happen, for whatever reason, it's not a foul ball.

Yar, Wada, and one of the other coaches (Tateishi?) wailed on the ump more than Yano.

- ... If this doesn't happen, for whatever reason, it's not a foul ball ...

Actually, it is a foul ball, it's just not declared to be one. Umpiring mess ups only change the definition, not the actuality.

Does the umpiring profession pay enough to attract those with talent and work ethic to improve themselves?

- Actually, it is a foul ball, it's just not declared to be one. Umpiring mess ups only change the definition, not the actuality.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. The umpire has the power to change the actuality; i.e. what's recorded on the scorecard.

You're right of course about the poor quality of umpiring in Japan. But remember, on any given day you'll see blown calls at every level of baseball throughout the world. It's nothing new. I mean, look at some of the terms they've used for umpire(s) over the years: blind mice, blind Tom, dog robber, Jesse James, Mr. Guess - fans have been complaining about umpires for years.

I must say, in spite of the umpiring arrogance, incompetence, or whatever you want to call it, Yano's disgraceful behavior shouldn't be condoned. A one-game suspension? Talk about a slap on the wrist.

I would really like to be in agreement with you on Yano's conduct, but I can't. Of course you are right that lots of umpiring errors happen - this is the nature of umpiring - but the level of incompetence and arrogance is truly too much to attribute to just errors.

As I said, it is not really Yano who is the most guilty. Neither is it the umpire. Ishii had the power to stop things by admitting he had hit the ball - he didn't and let the situation get out of control. To my mind he is the really guilty party in this whole affair.

As for Yano, I am reminded of the tennis player John McEnroe whose bad behavior (admittedly without pushing) brought about much needed changes in the way tennis matches were umpired (electronic sensors for example). I am hoping that his behavior starts something similar, though this is a faint hope. But if everyone remains silent nothing will change.

It's not cheating until you get caught. Not that I agree with it, but it's the same as in the MLB in the playoffs with the White Sox vs. Red Sox. The catcher didn't drop the ball, and the batter knew it, but ran to first anyway. The point is that it's not cheating if the ump makes a bad call.

You're trying to win for your team in a big money sport. You're going to do anything, especially in that situation where you can't get in trouble because it's not your fault. In a game with friends it's cheating, but not on that level. It's completely the ump's fault, and that's the end of it.

Obviously the Japanese have a different style of punishment for this kind of thing than in America, because in America you would get a very large fine and many games off.

I'm afraid we have to disagree here. It is cheating whether you get caught or not. Punishment or sanction depends on getting caught but not cheating. If you do not acknowledge the bad call when you know it is bad then you cheat. All sports people have a responsibility to follow the laws of the game, but as we know, a lot do not. This is why umpires are needed.

However, having an umpire does not absolve the player of their duty to follow the rules and to point out when the call was mistaken. This is called sportsmanship, but unfortunately it is a dying practice.

- ... having an umpire does not absolve the player of their duty to follow the rules and to point out when the call was mistaken.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify exactly which rule obliges the batter to tell the umpire when he's made a bad call? I don't think the game has ever been played that way. Surely you must be thinking of cricket.

Sadly, whether or not a player acknowledges a bad call doesn't matter, because it's not his call, it's an umpire's call - end of discussion. Players don't make the calls, umpires do - that's why they're there, instead of letting the players make their own ball/strike and safe/out calls.

A non-umpire's input, supportive or otherwise, is not wanted and generally not accepted. Umpires make the calls and they run the show, and that's their job - regardless of their ability.

If an ump blows a ball/strike call with a full count and a batter gets a walk instead of striking out, should he turn around to the ump and - argue balls and strikes? Should he say "No, please, ring me up - that last pitch just caught a corner of the plate and I should be out. Thanks so much for giving me this chance to come clean! Now I can sleep at night"?

The fact that a call is the umpire's does not absolve any player of a responsibility to assist if he can. Whilst this is not a rule, it is part of sportsmanship. If a player knows the call is wrong then he can help by informing the umpire. The problem is too many people would rather gain an advantage by letting the mistake go. Most umpires would welcome such support as it would make their job easier.

Whilst this principle has normally been applied in cricket, it can and should be applied in all sports. The fact that it did not happen in this situation meant that an unpleasant situation arose.

- If a player knows the call is wrong then he can help by informing the umpire.

I wholeheartedly agree, but you have to go along with it in the right way. You can't shove a umpire, regardless if you believe an umpire made a wrong call or not. There is a right and a wrong way to go along with expressing your disgust with the call.

Second, I also understand the level of umpiring in Japan is so bad that anyone that can pass an exam can become a umpire. And, yes, there is also a certain level of sportsmanship a player must be expected to take. It goes both ways.

Umpiring also must be improved to improve the game, but shoving a umpire doesn't solve this problem, and a one game ban is a slap in the face and a disgust.

The player I was referring to is Ishii not Yano. He could have prevented the whole problem by admitting he hit the ball. The fact that Yano received such a light punishment indicates that the authorities thought he had ample justification. Now whether they will take steps to improve the situation is another matter entirely.

- The player I was referring to is Ishii not Yano. He could have prevented the whole problem by admitting he hit the ball.

And give up two vital runs? Not on your life. He would have been pilloried by his teammates, his manager, his fans, and the local press.

You play to the whistle, to use a non-baseball term. Obey the umpire, yes; give your opponents an advantage by giving the man in blue a helping hand - no way. That's not how the game of baseball is played.

- The fact that Yano received such a light punishment indicates that the authorities thought he had ample justification.

Ample justification to shove an umpire? I'm not sure they would have couched it in quite those terms. Is there an official report on the incident? It would be interesting to know what the authorities really said.

With all due respect, Christopher, I understand where you're coming from, but I believe you're getting dangerously close to arguing that violence in sports in justifiable if the provocation is significant enough. I don't subscribe to that view. Violence (especially against officials) should, in fact, be eradicated. I like Yano, but what he did was atrocious. He deserved a stiffer penalty.

- And give up two vital runs? Not on your life. He would have been pilloried by his teammates, his manager, his fans, and the local press.

But this is what sportsmanship is all about - the refusal to accept an advantage which was not fairly earned. Maybe he would have been pilloried initially, but he would have also attracted a lot of praise because he acted like a true sportsman. The attitude you advocate here is the one which cost Japan the game against the U.S. in the WBC.

Ishii would have been in the right if he had confirmed the ball hitting the bat, but he didn't, and as a result degraded his team and himself. Of course this sort of thing happens all the time, but it still constitutes a general degrading of the sport.

- ... but I believe you're getting dangerously close to arguing that violence in sports in justifiable if the provocation is significant enough.

Well all Yano received was a one game suspension, no fine. This is a slap on the wrist - it is a nominal punishment. Maybe Ishii's cheating played a part in determining the length of the suspension - I don't know, but it is indicative of the authorities attitudes. I should have said that I didn't think Yano was right to behave in that way.

Consider a similar situation in Game 7 of the World Series. But instead of staying silent, the player tells the umpire that his bat made contact. Umpire reverses call. Team fails to score and loses the game by a run.

The post-game conversation between the player and his manager could go something like this.

Player: Sorry skip, I know I cost the team the championship, but I just wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I'd allowed those two runs to score on a deception. Besides, the catcher might've beaten up the poor umpire if I'd stayed silent. And that would have been entirely my fault.

Manager: That's all right son, I understand. It's always better to follow your conscience even though it's to the detriment of the team. You were just doing the ump's job for him. And thinking of his welfare. A true sportsman. You'll be basking in praise and adulation once what you've done eventually sinks in. Anyway, there's always next year. Pity you won't be a part of it.

You still fail to understand sportsmanship. The win is nothing if you cheat to get it. This includes assisting the umpires if the situation warrants it. Take the infamous WBC game where the American manager got the call reversed. The call was right the first time so his behavior was even worse. Rightly a lot of Americans were sickened by it - as would they be with the situation you describe. Remember, it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

- You still fail to understand sportsmanship.

And one could equally argue that you fail to understand the essence of baseball and how it's played in the real world.

That probably makes us even.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "essence." The essence of baseball (as with all sport) is to play the game in a hard but fair manner. To try to win without cheating but through your honest efforts. The essence isn't to cheat or to try and gain unfair advantages.

Of course in the "real world" it is different, and players do cheat and try to gain unfair advantages. Sometimes law makers are able to stop these (I believe you quoted an example in a post on video replays), sometimes not. Sometimes you have to rely on players being honest, and sometimes they cheat. Just because this happens does not make it right, and it is important to remember this point.

On a modest tangent, what's the verdict on the hidden ball trick? Catchers that block the plate before they have the ball? Runners that slam into the catcher hoping to jar the ball loose? Runners sliding out of the base paths to break up a double play? Sign stealing? Brush backs? Umpires that give different types of pitchers different strike zones? Bunting to break up no-hitters? There are a lot of unsporting-yet-legal (or at least permitted) aspects here.

Thanks Dragsfan. I think I can add a couple more to the list: catchers framing the pitch, first basemen distracting the base runner by engaging him in friendly conversation, pitchers not returning a severely scuffed ball to the umpire, trapping the ball, stealing bases when your side is winning in a blowout, first base coaches calling safe in close (and not-so-close) plays in order to attract a favorable ruling from the umpire, forcing a double play by intentionally failing to catch a ball in a situation where the infield fly rule doesn't apply.

I think the point to be made is that the definition of sportsmanship is not absolute, both within a specific sport and between sports. Some of the actions above are acceptable in baseball, others borderline, others unacceptable - but most of them fail Christopher's cookie cutter test of what constitutes sportsmanship: "the refusal to accept an advantage which was not fairly earned."

As far as the differences between sports are concerned, consider what Wikipedia says on this question in its comparison of cricket and baseball.[blockquote]In cricket, the standard of sportsmanship has historically been considered so high that the phrase 'it's just not cricket' was coined in the 19th Century to describe unfair or underhanded behavior in any walk of life. ... In baseball, a player is expected to place his team above the rules - for example, by not disputing an out awarded to him from a catch, even when he knows he trapped the ball. Sportsmanship in baseball is at times more concerned than cricket with showing respect for one's opponents; for example, stealing bases or laughing on the field when one has a big lead are considered gross breaches of sportsmanship.[/blockquote]This is more or less consistent with what I've been saying.

That was an interesting article, but you will forgive me if I say that it cannot be considered definitive or even authoritative. Wikepedia is a source in which anyone can write anything, and so must be treated with a large degree of caution.

I prefer to look at the reaction of people to the WBC Davison affair. The level of comment and disapproval at the goings on indicated that this approach was not considered the norm. In fact it indicated that the more sporting approach was the one which people preferred.

Now I am not disputing that unsporting-like behavior is common in sport. What I am saying is that even though it is common it does not become right. I would also go further and say that most people would like sport to be more sporting. In baseball you are not, like any other sport, expected to place your team above the rules. You are expected to follow the rules and play in a fair and reasonable manner. Cheating is out and should be condemned whenever it happens. The alternative is a gradually corrupted sport - note how drugs have spread through MLB and the minor leagues through non-condemnation and the very attitude you are advocating.

Christopher, I don't know whether you really believe everything you write on this site, but at least your theories are entertaining.

First, Wikipedia may not be definitive or authoritative as you say, but at least I have at least one source that backs up what I say. Where are yours? And besides, I'm too old to fall for that debating trick. You cast doubt on the source, but is the information incorrect? You don't say.

Second, the WBC incident you refer to was extraordinary, and yes, while Buck Martinez could have been accused of being unsporting in his appeal, he was entirely within his rights to ask the umpires to consider the question of whether Nishioka had left the bag early (and in fact whether the wrong umpire had made the call).

Now, as you claim sportsmanship involves following the rules, then according to your definition, Martinez was indeed being sportsman-like. The umpires screwed it up of course, but Martinez didn't cheat. He didn't beat up the umpire either.

Third, the Ishii incident also involved a bad call, but instead of appealing (or even retrieving the ball to save at least one run, Yano immediately decided to take matters into his own hands and shove the umpire. Then the Tigers' bench emptied and Okada and at least one of his coaches got into the act. Where's the sportsmanship in that?

Ishii meanwhile didn't say a word, waved the base runners home, and took advantage of the umpire's mistake and Yano's hotheadedness. The umpire didn't ask him whether he made contact, so he didn't lie. He was under no obligation under the rules of baseball to say or do anything. The contact he made with the ball was inadvertent. But you focused on Ishii as the villain, conveniently ignoring the illegal (and unsportsmanlike) actions committed by Hanshin.

In most sports, coaches tell their junior players to "play to the whistle." If the official makes a ruling, by all means obey it (and if you are entitled to challenge it, do that), but under no circumstances should you help the official out. If the poor guy didn't see it, then that's his problem. You don't let your teammates down by being a goodie-two-shoes and assisting your opponents.

And I'm not just making that up. I've heard it said many times, and this approach appears in many coaching manuals. I challenge you to find a source that says the opposite.

You and I obviously have a different view of sports, and perhaps that's natural if one considers that you're from the UK, raised on the English style of cricket, and I'm from Australia, where we have a more aggressive and competitive approach. Cricket, of course, is one of the few sports where it is sportsman-like to give yourself out. In short, a game played by gentlemen, although I'm not sure that label quite fits us in the Antipodes.

In an earlier post you claimed that: "All sportspeople have a responsibility to follow the laws of the game."

Fair enough, but when I asked you which law Ishii was breaking, you then claimed that players have a responsibility not only to follow the rules, but also to assist the umpire, which is "part of sportsmanship." And you extended this further and stated that sportsmanship was also: "...the refusal to accept an advantage which was not fairly earned."

But this is such a broad definition to be almost meaningless. Drafgsfan and I have been pointing out all the possible instances in baseball in which you can gain "an advantage which was not fairly earned."

Where do you draw the line? The rules are a start (and Ishii didn't break any rules remember). But the rules are only a start. You've also got to consider the spirit in which the game is supposed to be played (the "essence" I referred to earlier). Each sport has its own traditions (they are not the same), and thus the spirit in which the each sport is supposed to be played, and thus standards of sportsmanship are different as well. And they are never static.

The bottom line: sportsmanship is not absolute. There are many shades of gray, and the fact that we're having this debate is testament to that. And by the way, in case you misunderstand, I'm not saying you are wrong in disapproving of Ishii's actions. You do make a couple of valid points. It's just that we both have a different take on sportsmanship. You believe he was the villain; I'd be more inclined to blame Yano, who after all broke the rules by shoving the umpire.

Hard but fair - there is a physical aspect to the game. Most of what you describe falls under that definition. I don't know how anyone can consider sign stealing unsporting. Figuring out others' signs is perfectly legitimate. Umpires giving different strike zones to pitchers though - that's down to the umpires, and part of the problem with them. Bunting to break up no hitters - petty and small-minded. That is unsporting.

- Of course in the "real world" it is different, and players do cheat and try to gain unfair advantages.

Is there another world out there I'm missing? You seem to be hung up on grade school lectures.

Yes there is - the question of sportsmanship is a big thing. This is what we have been discussing. I think you missed the irony in the quotes.

You seem to be the only person hung up on the so-called "sportsmanship" of helping an umpire.

There are thousands upon thousands of examples in the history of baseball of players getting calls that they knew were wrong. I think you'll find yourself to be in a very small minority of people who think it's a crime to the essence of baseball.

As another example: Are first base coaches supposed to tell umpires if they make a wrong safe call?

Yep welcome to the real world! Quaint little phrases like "it's how you play the game" are all very nice, but have no meaning in the world of professional sport where winning means big money! A good one for the kids, but let's be realistic!

I take it that both guest and crpls83 are American. Much as I admire your country and its people, I am afraid that its corruption of sport leaves me cold. What is meant to be a pleasant pastime that produces heroes children can look up to has been turned into a rather dirty experience that leaves many feeling tainted. It is not nice to hear your kind talking about what you call the "real world" as if it was something to be proud of. The real world is something else, and having seen the real world in America, I would much prefer it to the corrupt circus you call sport. If you defend cheating you are both beneath contempt.

Today I watched the Koshien High School Baseball Championship - hard fought competition but completely clean. No cheating at all. The real world is not necessarily what you claim. However I would suggest you contemplate how devalued and corrupt MLB has become. Then think how your attitudes have contributed to the corruption.

What a sad, bitter sweeping generalization of Americans. Sorry to all Americans that you had to read such nonsense, but I think we can all see Christopher's true side come out in the above comment! It would be like me saying, "What does a Pom know about baseball?!" But I wouldn't cop out with such an immature argument!

BTW, bad guess Christopher, I'm an Aussie.

- However I would suggest you contemplate how devalued and corrupt MLB has become.

What an extraordinary statement! On what do you base this? As previous posters have requested, start backing up your claims.

- Today I watched the Koshien High School Baseball Championship - hard fought competition but completely clean. No cheating at all. The real world is not necessarily what you claim.

And you think that players in the Koshien tournament would tell the umpires if they made a mistake, even if hurt their team? You think the coaches, schools, and fans would praise him for his sportsmanship rather than figuratively call for the mob, especially if it resulted in a loss and exit from the tournament?

- However I would suggest you contemplate how devalued and corrupt MLB has become. Then think how your attitudes have contributed to the corruption.

Yet when Delmon Young throws his bat while walking away and it hits the ump, he gets suspended for over a third of the season. (It was in AAA, not the majors, just to be clear.)

Meanwhile when Yano shoves an ump, he receives a slap on the wrist, and you blame Ishii and the bad umpiring and suggest he had justification because the league gave him the slap on the wrist. Everyone's at fault but Yano.

- Yep welcome to the real world! Quaint little phrases like "it's how you play the game" are all very nice, but have no meaning in the world of professional sport where winning means big money! A good one for the kids, but let's be realistic!

I'm not even talking about the money aspect - although that's obviously a huge factor (and always has been). I'm just not sure where this rosy image of America's national past-time is coming from. Nobody who studies the beginnings of baseball could ever believe it was ever a friendly, benevolent game lacking so-called "cheaters," who took every advantage possible.

If MLB and American baseball in general is evil and corrupt now, it's always been that way.

Is there any other sport in which shoving an umpire would end in just one game on the sidelines? In some sports, violence against an official would land you a lifetime ban; even with mitigating circumstances, you're still looking at a ban measured in seasons.

What about, ermm, "robust" sports like hockey? What would you get for violence against a referee?

OK. Let's all settle down for a moment and let a day pass without posting anything more to this thread. I'd like to post a recap of the arguments this evening (JST) when I get home. Then after everyone's cooled down, if there's anything more to add, post it tomorrow.

To make things clear, this thread is suspended for 24 hours. Nothing, no matter how well worded, will be accepted until 8:00 am JST tomorrow.

[For anyone who would like to debate this before then, please use the "Debate: Umpire Abuse" chat room until then. If you're the only one there, don't voice your displeasure that no one else is. Write a note of when you're return (with a time zone), and try again later. No guarantees that anyone will be there. If there are some good arguments there, I'll include them in the summary.]

This thread started off as an incident where Hanshin's catcher Yano didn't like a call and turned and shoved an umpire. From that incident a debate ensued about what sportsmanship is, with an emphasis on what responsibilities a player has toward aiding the umpires make the right calls.

Yano physically shoved an umpire.

Surprisingly, this was the topic that received the least amount of attention. There was indignation from everyone but Christopher about both Yano and at least one of the coaches physically assaulting the umpire. Christopher blamed the umpires for their incompetence and the batter Ishii for not speaking up. He claimed that Yano was justified in his actions as his one game suspension shows that the Powers-That-Be also thought the umpiring was at fault. This attitude is what spawned another Christopher vs. everyone else debate.

Here is a summary of some of Christopher's arguements. I'm quoting out of context, so please, don't react from just these quotes. Use the links and read the quotes in context.

• - The umpires getting tough would be a good thing if they were competent enough to do their job. [Full Comment]
  
  The umpires all got together in an attempt to make the right call. None of the umpires saw any indications that the ball was fouled off. From all of their perspectives, it looked like a bad hop. I did not have the impression that it was a power trip on behalf of the home plate umpire (ala Davidson). The umpiring crew first sought to restore order by calming the Hanshin coaches down. Then they discussed what had happened and came to the conclusion that it was not a foul ball, suggesting that nobody heard a foul tip. When Okada-kantoku protested the two runs, claiming that they came home after Yano was ejected and the ball was dead, the umpires got together again, discussed it, and made the ruling.
  
  Umpiring has come a long way since the DiMuro Experiment. While it still has a ways to go, I failed to see what the umpires did wrong (other than possibly miss the call and not ejecting a couple other Tigers) with the handling of the situation.



• - I would really like to be in agreement with you on Yano's conduct, but I can't. [...] the level of incompetence [of the umpires] and arrogance is truly too much to attribute to just errors. [Full Comment]
  
  This is probably a cultural bias, but I was raised with the commandment "thou shalt not touch an umpire." Every time I see a player or coach physically shoves an umpire I'm amazed that he's not immediately ejected. It's human to error. But to resort to physical violence against an umpire is simply not acceptable - ever.
  
  It appears that most people who took offense at Christopher saying this have had a similar upbringing. Not all cultures see the same way here. Japan has a long history of physically abusing umpires for their bad calls, so Christopher is not alone in this view. While it's against the values I was raised with, I cannot judge a different culture by my own values.



• - The fact that Yano received such a light punishment indicates that the authorities thought he had ample justification. [Full Comment]
  
  I was surprised not to hear cries of racism here. The "if it were a gaijin" were unusually silent. The ejection plus a day was certainly more than Sheets got for throwing a helmet at an umpire, but not anywhere close to the half season Balvino Galdez got for throwing a ball at an umpire. I guess that throwing a helmet at an umpire is less than shoving an umpire, which is less than throwing a ball at an umpire.



• - Well all Yano received was a one game suspension, no fine. This is a slap on the wrist - it is a nominal punishment. [...] it is indicative of the authorities attitudes. I should have said that I didn't think Yano was right to behave in that way. [Full Comment]
  
  Acknowledgment that Yano was not right to shove the umpire was all I needed to hear. All is forgiven.

The whole thing was Ishii's fault.

• - Also, one must question Ishii's attitude in all this. If he hit the ball (and the evidence indicates that he did) then he cheated quite badly. His behaviour is worse for the game than Yano's. [Full Comment]
  
  I'm not convinced that Ishii knew he hit the ball, if he actually did. The ball hit the edge of the plate and bounced up at an odd angle. Ishii moved back and quickly motioned the runners home, taking off for first with enough time to get to second before the ball was called dead. There's no way he could have premeditated such an event. And the timing with which he reacted shows that he thought it was a past ball or can think deviously in an incredibly short period of time. I simply can't think that ill of Ishii Takuro.



• - [...] it is not really Yano who is the most guilty. Neither is it the umpire. To my mind [Ishii] is the really guilty party in this whole affair. [Full Comment]
  
  I don't even know how to react to this one. It's such a leap of logic that I can't follow it. I can't argue against what I don't understand.



• - [Ishii] could have prevented the whole problem by admitting he hit the ball. [Full Comment]
  
  This is an interesting hypothetical. I'm going through the scene in my mind and wondering when Ishii would have had a chance to get the umpire's attention and say that the ball hit his bat - if he even realized at the time that it did, which I'm not convinced of.

It's all about sportsmanship.

• - [...] having an umpire does not absolve the player of their duty to follow the rules and to point out when the call was mistaken. This is called sportsmanship, but unfortunately it is a dying practice. [Full Comment]
  
  From this the debate about what defines sportsmanship began. I actually agree with Christopher on a number of his points, especially that sportsmanship is seen all too infrequently these days and that players should do "what's right" when they can. It's not just a philosophy for the playing field, it's a philosophy for life.



• - But this is what sportsmanship is all about - the refusal to accept an advantage which was not fairly earned. [Full Comment]
  
  As was a problem above with cultural differences, where to draw the line about accepting an advantage will differ from person to person.
  
  Let's say it's 5:50 am and I'm walking to the train station. There's a red walk light, no cars, and not another person within sight. Is it taking an unfair advantage of the situation to go ahead and cross against the red walk light? It's not hurting anybody, and it's not endangering anybody. What harm is there? Well, I face this situation quite often, and I always wait for the light to turn green, even while someone on a bicycle will come up from behind me and fly on through the red light seconds before the light changes to green. Based on observations from when others are about at the same time period or during similar situations, I'm the only person who will stop and wait for the green walk light. It doesn't matter to me whether I can get away with it or not, I wait patiently. But I'm clearly in the minority.
  
  There are other rules that I'm more than willing to break because I think they're just bad rules. Each person draws the line in a different place.
  
  When you introduce other people to the mix, things become more complicated. Would I be willing to turn in a member of my family for a crime (not that any has committed one)? Being highly protective of my family, it's highly unlikely. What about a coworker or a scheme to defraud at work? That's a little more difficult as it would adversely effect a large number of people that I care about who most likely had nothing to do with the issue. But you can bet that I would not be working there long after becoming knowledgeable about any unethical practices.



• - The win is nothing if you cheat to get it. [Full Comment]
  
  I try to teach this to my kids, that they're only cheating themselves when they cheat.
  
  The problem is that there are too many examples of people who have profited by cheating. Look at Microsoft. Everybody knows that they've wrongfully killed off hundreds of companies and entire segments of the software industry. I get into battles at work regularly because I refuse to open documents in Word or Excel formats. Doing so will essentially condone Microsoft's behavior that made such formats de-facto standards. Yet other people, knowing full well Microsoft's deplorable history, continue to promote the use of such formats by sharing such files every day. While this is unacceptable behavior to me, the rest of the world seems to have no problem with it. (Well, they did, but thanks to the Open Document Format [Wikipedia - and as a technician who has followed the ODF story, Wikipedia is accurate in their account], things are finally starting to change.)
  
  I agree, cheaters should never prosper. And there will be those who are morally outraged by the actions of those who cheat. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly in the U.S. not once, but twice, and they still got off with little more than a slap on the wrist (similar to Yano, but thanks to heavy political contributions). It was looking like they would never face any music, but fortunately the E.U. came along and actually fined Microsoft for ignoring their directives to change Microsoft's anti-social behavior. Justice is possible in some parts of the world.



• - I prefer to look at the reaction of people to the WBC Davison affair. The level of comment and disapproval at the goings on indicated that this approach was not considered the norm. In fact it indicated that the more sporting approach was the one which people preferred. [Full Comment]
  
  This was actually very refreshing to see, people getting upset with what appeared to be blatant cheating, even to the point of cheering for the opposition. I can't recall every seeing anything quite like it, and it greatly heightened my view of MLB fans in general. People wanted to see fair, honest work.



• - [...] note how drugs have spread through MLB and the minor leagues through non-condemnation [...]. [Full Comment]
  
  The whole steroid issue is still one I don't understand fully. They weren't illegal (due to the non-condemnation?), yet players who used them are being treated like criminals. I don't fully know where to place them under sportsmanship. If they weren't illegal, then a case could be made that they were essential to performing the duties that the paying crowd wanted to see - i.e. big home runs. In that case, for a slugger to not have been using steroids would have been unsportsmanlike of him. I'm not trying to place a good/bad value judgement on the use of steroids, but rather showing that if there isn't a specific rule, that some things may be in that grey area. [Please don't start up the whole steroids debate again. I'm not justifying their use. I'm just pointing out that not everyone sees the issue the same way.]



• - I don't know how anyone can consider sign stealing unsporting. Figuring out others' signs is perfectly legitimate. [Full Comment]
  
  Actually, sign stealing is considered to be very unsportsmanlike like in Japan. There was the complex sign stealing scandal in Fukuoka where a fan in center would hold up a megaphone to single the sign to the batter. That caused the banning of all megaphones in the Pacific League dugouts, which is one of the things that Nomura-kantoku complained about before the season started. (He really likes being able to yell at his players through one.)
  
  Furthermore, just last week, Brown-kantoku accused Ochiai-kantoku of having a spy steal the Carp's signs. The Central League took the accusation very seriously and ran an investigation. Ochiai-kantoku was found not-guilty by the league's office, but the press wasn't so sure.
  
  Again, we have a cultural difference to what sportsmanship is. In Japan, stealing signs are a big no-no. Probably worse than shoving an umpire but still not as bad as throwing a ball at one.



• - Today I watched the Koshien High School Baseball Championship - hard fought competition but completely clean. No cheating at all. [Full Comment]
  
  Actually, I noticed in a number of the games that some of the kids tried their best to claim being hit when they weren't (umpire didn't always fall for it). Also, there were a number of trapped balls on diving catches that the player would scoop up and raise in the air in appeal that he had caught it cleanly. Again, the umpires were right on top of the plays and ruled the ball to have been in play. [The umpiring at Koshien has been exceptionally good. I've heard it's harder to become an ump there than to become an umpire for the professionals.]

I've focused on Christopher's comments throughout this review. It's because his are the ones that seem to get people most upset. I hope that I've been able to clarify why that is to some extent, for both Christopher and those of you debating with him. I fear that the necessary common ground isn't there a lot of the time, so everyone has been talking with very different basic assumptions.

I hope that all of you will take some time before replying to this. Consider if your comment is making a value statement based on values that others may not share. Consider if what you're saying is based on a cultural bias others may not share. Finally, don't assume that there's a right answer to anything discussed here and that you've got to convince others of your point of view.

A masterful summary if I may say so.

I must admit I only saw a few games of the High School Championships, and those I saw were very clean. But yes, the umpires were excellent. I would only question one or two things.

Firstly, Ishii hitting the ball, he would have been aware that ball hit his bat. In fact, he couldn't have missed it and would have felt it clearly. Everyone in Japan knew he hit the ball as it was played and replayed on TV. How the umpires missed it is beyond me.

Secondly, with regard to steroids in MLB - they weren't illegal but people who used them knew that they were considered underhand. If anything, general sporting culture throughout the world (even at that time) considered drugs wrong. The failure to deal with the problem was a triumph of money over principle and tarnished MLB very badly. The fact that known steroid users are continuing to play (even though there is very little the authorities can do about it) continues to tarnish the sport. This, I would say, is the perfect illustration of my theory that if cheating is allowed to continue unchecked, and if players do not act in a sportsmanlike manner (steroids - they're not banned), the sport itself becomes corrupted. In fact the tarnish has spread so much that some people will accuse NPB players of using steroids (with no evidence at all) on the grounds that if MLB does it others do as well.

Your point about different cultures is well taken, but I would also make this point. If people do not accept personal responsibility and own up to their mistakes or avoid an underhand advantage then the sport suffers. If they do not assist the umpires (who are human and fallible) they do bring the sport down. They also, through their actions, encourage the attitude that it is right to avoid personal responsibility, and this impacts on more important matters in life. As people in the public view sports people as having an opportunity to contribute in a positive way, too many of them fail miserably. Sportsmanship is important precisely because it is able to show clearly that there are principles which are worth following and that it is OK to be wrong and to admit that it is so. It also demonstrates that there are some things other than winning in any way possible which are important.

Do you even actually like baseball?

It's never been what you claim. How can the game be dragged down if it's never been "up" to your own standards?

If steroids and the massive ignoring of the problem is not dragging the game down I don't know what is. Even though it wasn't a shinning beacon of virtue, it was far better before they came along. The fact is that baseball can and should aspire to be better.

- The whole steroid issue is still one I don't understand fully. They weren't illegal (due to the non-condemnation?), yet players who used them are being treated like criminals.

Steroids are illegal in the United States, though.