Quote:
Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy
The point of this thread, i thought, was to make an argument for Rose/Jackson to be in the Hall. So my argument is that his actions never affected the sanctity of the game because he always put in 100% attempt to win. I get that 'rules are rules' but we are not talking about Harold Baines, rather one of the greatest hitters of all time.
There are also signs for no pepper games written clearly on every wall in every stadium. not sure I ever saw anyone play pepper games but if I did , they would be breaking clear rules.
|
Wid,
Understand what you're saying, but in Rose's case he really doesn't has a leg to stand on as the rule was really clear. The problem with Rose's defense that he only bet on the Red's to win, while theoretically lending itself to the argument that he therefore wasn't doing anything to purposely lose games, is that there is no way to prove that. At least not that I'm aware of. The only way you could even begin to give him the benefit of the doubt is if you believe him 100% in that what he said about his betting patterns is true. But remember, he initially lied and kept denying he was betting on Red's games at all, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When he finally had to admit to the betting, that's when the story about him only having bet on the Red's to win came out. Why or how would anyone in their right mind be able to believe a word Rose said after the initial lies he kept swearing to for all those years? And the rule he broke had been in place since 1927, and said with absolutely no exceptions, the penalty was immediate and permanent suspension and ineligibility from having anything to do with MLB.
Now, with all the changes going on in professional sports here in the U.S., along with the loosening up of gambling laws and its legalization in more and more states, the major U.S. professional sports leagues all seem to be embracing sports gambling and trying to figure out how to partner up with the gambling industry, and of course get their cut of the pie as well. Given such changing thinking, I'm guessing MLB may at some point begin to rethink their rules on gambling as they may begin to look to restrictive and overly hypocritical. However, I doubt any of the major sports, especially baseball, will ever allow gambling by a player/manager on their own team, or on a team they are playing against. And for MLB, if they did finally revise their gambling rules, I think they would change the penalty so it wasn't always just permanent suspension and ineligibility. I would guess, depending on the facts and circumstances of each separate gambling transgression, they could maybe just suspend a player for a number of games or some specified period of time and/or fine them some specified amount, rather than always just invoking a permanent suspension
Because of Rose's past actions and lying, I've always figured he pissed off so many people that run MLB that as punishment, they'll never let him live to see the day he gets enshrined in Cooperstown. My guess is that after he finally passes away, they'll wait some period of time and then maybe change the rules to figure out a way to let him regain eligibility and allow him to then be posthumously inducted into the HOF. And I think at that point they'll also let Joe Jackson become eligible again and allow him to go into Cooperstown as well. Jackson's case for going into the HOF has always been stronger than Rose's, especially since the gambling rules keeping Rose out weren't even in effect when Jackson's transgressions occurred. Even so, always figured that MLB wasn't going to go back now and change the rules to let Jackson back in because if they did, they'd probably get lambasted by the pro-Rose people until they ended up letting him in as well. So I honestly think they'll both get in the HOF as inductees one day, just depends on how long Rose stays around.
And regarding the no pepper game rule, wasn't really aware of that myself, but that probably relates to MLB Rule 3.09. Did a little checking and sure enough, that rule was put on the books back in the 1920s, and the origin for it was directly because of the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Apparently back then, the players from both teams would often come out before games and talk and fraternize amongst themselves, and often play games of pepper together. After the gambling scandal, MLB was so afraid of the fans thinking the players from the two teams may be getting together before games to talk about fixing games or hooking up with gamblers , or whatever, they didn't want the fans to see the players or coaches from either of the two teams talking or fraternizing with each other, nor talking or fraternizing with any spectators or anyone in the stands, and then get the idea something was going on. The actual rule isn't that long and is as follows:
Rule 3.09: Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game. No manager, coach or player shall address any spectator before or during a game. Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.
And that is it, that is the entire rule. It doesn't actually say anything about the game of pepper not being allowed, it just means that players from both teams can't join in on a pepper game together. Also, the rule doesn't really state what the penalty is for an infraction, or who exactly is responsible for enforcing the rule. Since there is no mention of umpires in the rule, I would guess MLB was looking to them to police and enforce this. But if the intent of the rule was to remove the fan's perception of anyone talking to each other or to gamblers to possibly fix a game, why would the umpires be exempt from that suspicion? In fact, given that the umpires probably made way less than any of the players, managers or coaches, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore easier) for the gamblers to bribe the umpires to help throw a game, especially the umpire behind the plate calling balls and strikes? This is really a stupid rule. Aside from the obvious omission in regards to the umpires, why wouldn't the players from both teams simply talk to each other before or after games, prior to getting into their uniforms, or after the leave the ballpark? And why would people assume that players would only meet and talk to the gamblers right there at the ballpark? This rule is insane and absolutely ridiculous if it was truly intended to keep fans from thinking games were being fixed. And yet, it is actually still pretty much followed even today. Why else do you think you never see opposing players talking before a game starts? Unlike all the other major sports, why do you think you never see opposing teams shake hands or the losers congratulate the winners after a game, apparently because of this rule. Never really knew that before (nor really thought about it), but now it makes some sense.
However, I do know for a fact that this rule is not always enforced. In the early 2000's I used to go to Westport, Ct every Summer to audit a client, and the Controller there was a huge Yankees fan, and she loved it when I came out with my staff assistant to do the audit work. She'd tell the owners they needed to take us out at least one evening during our stay as entertainment, so this was her way of getting the company to pay for Yankee tickets so she could go to the game as well. LOL And of course, since the company was paying for it she would try to get the best seats she could. So this one evening we head out for the old Yankee stadium from Westport, and get there early so we make it by game time and don't get caught in traffic. Turns out she was able to get some great seats, 10th-11th row back from the field, 1st base side, right on the edge of the dugout closest to home plate. So we're like 30-35 feet from the field, right at the edge of the Yankee's dugout. So I'm in the aisle seat and we're getting close to game time, and all sudden we look up and there's then current NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg going down the aisle to his seat in the 1st right, literally right in front of us and next to the Yankee dugout. And then a minute or two later, Ex-NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes walking down the same aisle, right past me, and plops down next to Bloomberg in the first row. (Who would have expected to see those two guys sitting together at a Yankees game?) And almost immediately after Giuliani gets settled in his seat, I look and there's Joe Torre coming out of the dugout. Takes a step or two towards the railing, picks his right leg up and swings it over the railing and sort of half sits on it, and starts BSing with Bloomberg and Giuliani, a clear violation of MLB Rule 3.09!!!!!
Thinking back on it now, never did see an umpire come anywhere near where they were talking, even though they must have been gabbing for at least a good 10-15 minutes. I also seem to remember that there were several very large gentlemen, all wearing similar dark suits, with ties and matching sunglasses and earpieces, that were all sort of standing around the area where the two ex-mayors were sitting. They never sat down once during the entire game, and I swear I never saw a single drop of sweat on any of them, despite it being about 85 degrees (or more) in the shade for the whole game. They may have been the reason the umpires never dared to come by and say anything. LOL For the life of me, can't remember who the Yankees were playing, but all the while that Torre was gabbing with the two ex-mayors, about 5-10 feet behind him we got to watch A-Rod and Jeter warming up playing catch, which was kind of cool. Best part of the evening though was getting to experience, in person, the top of the 9th inning, Yanks in a slim lead, stadium sold out and packed to the rafters, and all of a sudden you start to hear the first few notes from Metallica's "Enter Sandman" coming out of the stadium's speakers...................
What followed, alone, was well worth the price of admission!
07-03-2021, 06:39 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
