Ensberg wrote his blog post as though he were a judge presiding over his court (You might want to click that link before hand to see Ensberg's exact argument but I can sum it up by saying this: he sides with Rodriguez on the grounds that there is no unwritten rule regarding this issue and Braden overreacted in such a way as to prove that he was actually in the wrong). I responded as though I were a prosecutor. Ensberg then went on to respond to my response to his response.....got that?
Now that Dallas Braden has pitched a perfect game and has discussed seeking retribution against A-Rod when their teams meet in July, now seems like the perfect time to post my appeal to the court of Morgan Ensberg (click "Read More" to continue)
Your Honor
As it pertains to etiquette and adherence to the sacred "unwritten rules" of baseball, Alex Rodriguez has antecedents that should be more closely scrutinized. I hope that you will not render this information inadmissible in your court.
Alex Rodriguez, on multiple occasions, has given cause to get "drilled" in his next at-bat. I submit to the court the following incidents:
- 2004 Playoff ALCS (NY v. Bos)--The Defendant veered out of the baseline and made contact with a defender attempting a tag and then used his hands to rip the ball out of the infielder's glove (a play which, off the record, I actually kind of liked).
- When running the bases shouted, "Mine!", at a defender attempting to field a pop-fly, thus causing said defender to err (deemed very "bush league" by those in the know).
These incidents are a reflection of Alex Rodriguez' character. Counsel acknowledges however, that it is not Alex Rodriguez' moral fiber on trial this evening. We must stick to the facts not mere judgments. The above accounts are, according to my very faint copy of the "unwritten rules", blatant violations by the Defendant.
When using the standard of a "reasonable person" should we not expect Mr. Braden to take into account Mr. Rodriguez' past behavior regarding etiquette? Mr. Braden's response, while disproportionate, was reasonable in the context of Mr. Rodriguez' history---a history that suggests the Defendant was attempting to accomplish the following:The above are all motives for the Defendant. It is the physical evidence though, that is most damning......the evidence of Mr. Rodriguez' spikes tamping earth.......THAT IS NOT HIS, Good Sir!
- To "show-up" Mr. Braden by crossing through the pitcher's domain.
- Attempting to "get in his head" thus gaining a future competitive advantage.
- Perhaps most egregiously......the implication of a professional pecking order, of which Mr. Braden is not yet a part.
The mound belongs to the starting pitchers and those, and only those, who succeed them in relief. It is their domain. Would we not deem it unsportsmanlike for a football team to carry their pregame drills into the opposition's side of the field? Indeed we would. Do we not find it disagreeable when we see a batter sneaking a peek at a catcher's set-up location? Is there not cause for retribution in such an instance? There most certainly is.Judge Ensberg responded accordingly:
Let there also be no doubt that the Plaintiff's actions (Dallas Braden) were also in violation of Baseball's Unwritten Rules. As a professional, he should have given Mr. Rodriguez a few stern words and then made no mention of it ever again, especially to the press. Behind the closed doors of the clubhouse a strategy should have then been employed to exact a proper and proportionate response.
At the end of the day players must judge for themselves as to what may or may not be in violation of the unwritten codes. I like to think of these unwritten codes much like the Constitution of the United States......that they can be amended over time to fit the mores of evolving generations of ball players (without the messy and stringent ratification process of our Founder's document, of course).
It is my hope that this appeal is given an unbiased review and that the defendant's behavior is found to be unsportsmanlike and therefore in violation of said "unwritten rules". Ignorance is not a defense and the court should recognize the Defendant's past reliance on such chicanery.
Your Honor......I implore you to ponder this special case a bit longer and ask yourself the following: What would Bob Gibson do?
Regards
Avenging Jack Murphy
(I am not a lawyer, I merely play one in the blog-o-sphere)
I’ll admit it. Counselor, your points are very valid. If the situation was anything other than taking the quickest route to first base, I would over turn this. However, since it clearly says in the unwritten rulebook that players who adhere to the laws of gravity are allowed to use any surface on the field if it is connected to the Earth.Ah, magnificent prose.........it's what we do here.
Mr Rodriguez had demonstrated sporadic behavior and is a easy target. In my playing experience, I jogged over the mound all the time if it was the quickest path. Further, although I did not handle the two previous Rodriguez cases, I would have found Mr Rodriguez guilty on both counts.
Mr Braden embarrassed himself by blowing something completely out of proportion. He used a hammer as a fly swatter.
Mr Avenging Jack Murphy,
Your prose is magnificent. If this was a case of character, I would have to overturn the decision.
This case may still be overturned if new evidence comes to light.
Morgan
