If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Joe Kelly wins $100 bet from friend and former teammate Shelby Miller after getting a hit off of him in the Red Sox-Cardinals game on Thursday. Pete Rose can tell you why there's a "Dumbass" tag on this one   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line 82
    More: Dumbass, Shelby Miller, infield hit, Gary Cederstrom, best friends, Red Sox, bunt, trade deadline  
•       •       •

1082 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Aug 2014 at 11:04 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-08 09:33:07 AM  
It's a direct competition. They were basically betting each other that they'd do their job to the best of their ability.
 
2014-08-08 10:10:03 AM  

jaylectricity: It's a direct competition. They were basically betting each other that they'd do their job to the best of their ability.


yeah, but if the pitcher doesn't want to lose the bet, he can just unintentionally/intentionally walk the batter.  That can lead to that runner scoring and if the pitcher's team loses by that 1 run, then he cost his team the gave over a $100 wager.
 
2014-08-08 11:08:29 AM  
Tag is for Pete Rose or subby?
 
2014-08-08 11:08:30 AM  
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible
 
2014-08-08 11:09:56 AM  
And Pete said that he never bet against his team.

How is betting on baseball not betting on baseball?  THOU SHALT NOT BET ON BASEBALL.

Sorry.  It might seem like all fun and games, but it really does call for some form of sanctioning.  Rule 21 is clear.

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
 
2014-08-08 11:10:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible


You beat me to it by 24 seconds.  Good on ya.
 
2014-08-08 11:21:06 AM  

gsiofa: Tag is for Pete Rose or subby?


Apparently Kelly, Miller, Rose, and you.

I get it was a friendly and innocuous wager between pals, but the rules are quite explicit. In baseball, stay the hell away from any forms of betting.

If you do something like this you don't publicize it or (better yet, and) have something like "if you get a hit off me I will buy you dinner".
 
2014-08-08 11:21:59 AM  

MugzyBrown: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible


So, how does the Commissioner handle this? The rule book's pretty straightforward.

Rules-lawyer your way out of it? "It was a $100 incentive for performance between two individuals"?
 
2014-08-08 11:22:42 AM  
So commentators were outwardly joking that he was walked on 4 pitches to win the bet.  What if that lead to the winning run?

These dudes should get a suspension to send the right message.
 
2014-08-08 11:23:32 AM  
I suspect neither player is particularly worried about this keeping them out of the HoF.
 
2014-08-08 11:24:07 AM  

Gonz: MugzyBrown: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible

So, how does the Commissioner handle this? The rule book's pretty straightforward.

Rules-lawyer your way out of it? "It was a $100 incentive for performance between two individuals"?


Fine them each $100.
 
2014-08-08 11:24:40 AM  

Gonz: So, how does the Commissioner handle this? The rule book's pretty straightforward.

Rules-lawyer your way out of it? "It was a $100 incentive for performance between two individuals"?


If I'm the commish I suspend them both for 10 days with a stern warning to everybody else that next time something like this happens, for anybody, the ban hammer comes down
 
2014-08-08 11:25:28 AM  
Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.
 
2014-08-08 11:30:17 AM  

gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.


Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."
 
2014-08-08 11:31:26 AM  

MugzyBrown: Gonz: So, how does the Commissioner handle this? The rule book's pretty straightforward.

Rules-lawyer your way out of it? "It was a $100 incentive for performance between two individuals"?

If I'm the commish I suspend them both for 10 days with a stern warning to everybody else that next time something like this happens, for anybody, the ban hammer comes down


Except that the rules do not allow for lesser penalties.   The penalty is very clear.

And I'm sure that if you were to ask Pete, he'd say that any bets he made were just friendly wagers between best friends.
 
2014-08-08 11:33:12 AM  

gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.


At least Pete Rose can argue that he, as a single player in a team sport, has little impact on the final outcome of the game. This is arguably worse, since the players are betting on actions directly in their control.
 
2014-08-08 11:35:13 AM  

insano: gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.

Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."


I suppose the question is if the term "ball game" only entail the complete game or any segment thereof.
 
2014-08-08 11:37:21 AM  

insano: Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."


It doesn't. It says "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Rule 4.10 says "A regulation game consists of nine innings, unless extended because of a tie score, or shortened (1) because the home team needs none of its half of the ninth inning or only a fraction of it, or (2) because the umpire-in-chief calls the game."

A series of at-bats by one individual is not, by definition, a baseball game. It is part of what makes up a baseball game, but it is not a baseball game. That's the out here. That's the difference between a 3-game suspension and lifetime. If they'd bet $100 that Miller's team would beat Shelby's, then it's a lifetime ban. That's not what they bet, though.
 
2014-08-08 11:37:26 AM  

insano: gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.

At least Pete Rose can argue that he, as a single player in a team sport, has little impact on the final outcome of the game. This is arguably worse, since the players are betting on actions directly in their control.


He bet on games that he managed.
 
2014-08-08 11:37:42 AM  

dywed88: insano: gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.

Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."

I suppose the question is if the term "ball game" only entail the complete game or any segment thereof.


"No. No.  I never bet on final outcome.  I only bet on the individual outcome of specific plays. "

Ya.  That would totally work.
 
2014-08-08 11:37:47 AM  

insano: At least Pete Rose can argue that he, as a single player in a team sport, has little impact on the final outcome of the game. This is arguably worse, since the players are betting on actions directly in their control.


Pete Rose bet directly on the outcomes of ballgames. He was also the manager of the Reds for part of the duration he bet on games involving them (if memory serves).

insano: gsiofa: Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."



I used  bold for emphasis
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES.  Any player, umpire, or club official or 
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.
   Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
 
2014-08-08 11:38:58 AM  
Sadly, the rules are pretty clear on this. While I would think it would be a harsh penalty along the lines of some fooish zero-tolerance policies, they should be fined or suspended to send a message.
 
2014-08-08 11:42:00 AM  

insano: gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.

Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."



I think it's a fair interpretation of "who shall bet...upon any baseball  game."  One could just as easily ask where in the rule does it state that it applies to something smaller than the game itself.

This could put the commish in a tough spot.  Obviously, he's not going to want to ban these guys for a $100 bet like this.  But, if he concludes that they violated the rule, that is the only penalty allowed.  On the other hand, I'm sure he doesn't want to come out and say that the rule only applies to the outcome of the game, suggesting that other betting is allowed.  It'd be interesting to watch a baseball game if he opens those floodgates.  I can imagine a dugout full of millionaires betting on every pitch and at-bat just to keep things interesting.
 
2014-08-08 11:44:29 AM  

MugzyBrown: Gonz: So, how does the Commissioner handle this? The rule book's pretty straightforward.

Rules-lawyer your way out of it? "It was a $100 incentive for performance between two individuals"?

If I'm the commish I suspend them both for 10 days with a stern warning to everybody else that next time something like this happens, for anybody, the ban hammer comes down


I would go with less because of the circumstances, but your solution is reasonable.
 
2014-08-08 11:46:47 AM  

Gonz: insano: Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."

It doesn't. It says "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Rule 4.10 says "A regulation game consists of nine innings, unless extended because of a tie score, or shortened (1) because the home team needs none of its half of the ninth inning or only a fraction of it, or (2) because the umpire-in-chief calls the game."

A series of at-bats by one individual is not, by definition, a baseball game. It is part of what makes up a baseball game, but it is not a baseball game. That's the out here. That's the difference between a 3-game suspension and lifetime. If they'd bet $100 that Miller's team would beat Shelby's, then it's a lifetime ban. That's not what they bet, though.


I suspect you're right.  I'd imagine it'll be at least 10 games to make sure they each miss at least one start.  Maybe more.
 
2014-08-08 11:49:35 AM  

This Looks Fun: Sadly, the rules are pretty clear on this. While I would think it would be a harsh penalty along the lines of some fooish zero-tolerance policies, they should be fined or suspended to send a message.


Except that if they don't get banned from baseball, Pete Rose has an argument to make to be re-instated and finally put in the Hall of Fame. Not a great

The zero-tolerance policy against him is ridiculous at this point.

/I'm also pro-Bonds though, so take anything I say with a grain of salt
 
2014-08-08 11:50:21 AM  

muwaryer: I think it's a fair interpretation of "who shall bet...upon any baseball game." One could just as easily ask where in the rule does it state that it applies to something smaller than the game itself.


As others have pointed out, the interpretation of game as only the ultimate outcome of the game would open the league up to almost every other type of bet imaginable. Pitchers could bet that they will throw a strike, batters could bet that they will strike out, etc. The only reasonable interpretation is that game means every part of the game including the outcome.

Should these guys be banned? No, probably not. But that's the predicament you face when you allow for zero discretion in the rules.
 
2014-08-08 11:50:51 AM  

homarjr: This Looks Fun: Sadly, the rules are pretty clear on this. While I would think it would be a harsh penalty along the lines of some fooish zero-tolerance policies, they should be fined or suspended to send a message.

Except that if they don't get banned from baseball, Pete Rose has an argument to make to be re-instated and finally put in the Hall of Fame. Not a great

The zero-tolerance policy against him is ridiculous at this point.

/I'm also pro-Bonds though, so take anything I say with a grain of salt


Not a great argument, but an argument nonetheless.

/Need to learn to preview...
 
2014-08-08 11:54:19 AM  
Not sure which is dumber: the zero-tolerance interpretation of this rule, or the fact that they made it very public. While I'm okay with fining or possibly giving them a 5 game suspension (only BC its the only way to make sure they miss a start), I'd have to imagine that this sort of thing happens way more than we'll ever know about.

Any penalty should be considered an idiot's fee in this case. Betting happens, it will always happen, and as long as it doesn't escalate to Black Sox levels, I don't see the harm in it.
 
2014-08-08 11:56:14 AM  

FriarReb98: Not sure which is dumber: the zero-tolerance interpretation of this rule, or the fact that they made it very public. While I'm okay with fining or possibly giving them a 5 game suspension (only BC its the only way to make sure they miss a start), I'd have to imagine that this sort of thing happens way more than we'll ever know about.

Any penalty should be considered an idiot's fee in this case. Betting happens, it will always happen, and as long as it doesn't escalate to Black Sox levels, I don't see the harm in it.


Yep.  Again.  Pete.
 
2014-08-08 11:58:13 AM  

Gonz: A series of at-bats by one individual is not, by definition, a baseball game. It is part of what makes up a baseball game, but it is not a baseball game. That's the out here. That's the difference between a 3-game suspension and lifetime. If they'd bet $100 that Miller's team would beat Shelby's, then it's a lifetime ban. That's not what they bet, though.


How does one define "baseball game" without reference to the individual components of the game which led to the ultimate conclusion? The only game that would truly qualify is a cancelled game.
 
2014-08-08 11:59:31 AM  
there's nothing wrong with betting on baseball.
 
2014-08-08 12:03:44 PM  

Gonz: insano: Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."

It doesn't. It says "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Rule 4.10 says "A regulation game consists of nine innings, unless extended because of a tie score, or shortened (1) because the home team needs none of its half of the ninth inning or only a fraction of it, or (2) because the umpire-in-chief calls the game."

A series of at-bats by one individual is not, by definition, a baseball game. It is part of what makes up a baseball game, but it is not a baseball game. That's the out here. That's the difference between a 3-game suspension and lifetime. If they'd bet $100 that Miller's team would beat Shelby's, then it's a lifetime ban. That's not what they bet, though.


I disagree with this interpretation (and similar ones in this thread).

- When someone calls me and I'm at the Sox game, I say I'm at the game. I don't wait until eight and a half or nine innings are complete to say that.
- Relievers have a stat line for games; it doesn't mean full nine inning appearance.
- Finally, if I say I bet on a game, that doesn't mean I bet only on the outcome; there are a thousand prop bets that are included. I still bet on the game.

/my opinion; we'll have to see if the commish says anything
 
2014-08-08 12:05:30 PM  

muwaryer: insano: gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.

Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."


I think it's a fair interpretation of "who shall bet...upon any baseball  game."  One could just as easily ask where in the rule does it state that it applies to something smaller than the game itself.

This could put the commish in a tough spot.  Obviously, he's not going to want to ban these guys for a $100 bet like this.  But, if he concludes that they violated the rule, that is the only penalty allowed.  On the other hand, I'm sure he doesn't want to come out and say that the rule only applies to the outcome of the game, suggesting that other betting is allowed.  It'd be interesting to watch a baseball game if he opens those floodgates.  I can imagine a dugout full of millionaires betting on every pitch and at-bat just to keep things interesting.


Good point. Instead of a player betting $1000 on a game, it will be 'I'll bet $111.11 that my team scores more than your team in this inning', and do it 9 times in a game.

A bit far fetched, sure, but it's not betting on the outcome of the game.
 
2014-08-08 12:07:14 PM  

insano: muwaryer: I think it's a fair interpretation of "who shall bet...upon any baseball game." One could just as easily ask where in the rule does it state that it applies to something smaller than the game itself.

As others have pointed out, the interpretation of game as only the ultimate outcome of the game would open the league up to almost every other type of bet imaginable. Pitchers could bet that they will throw a strike, batters could bet that they will strike out, etc. The only reasonable interpretation is that game means every part of the game including the outcome.

Should these guys be banned? No, probably not. But that's the predicament you face when you allow for zero discretion in the rules.



Yeah...I agree.  Which is why I wrote pretty much exactly that in the next paragraph of my post.
 
2014-08-08 12:09:23 PM  

Piizzadude: MugzyBrown: Gonz: So, how does the Commissioner handle this? The rule book's pretty straightforward.

Rules-lawyer your way out of it? "It was a $100 incentive for performance between two individuals"?

If I'm the commish I suspend them both for 10 days with a stern warning to everybody else that next time something like this happens, for anybody, the ban hammer comes down

I would go with less because of the circumstances, but your solution is reasonable.


or do nothing because you know who the fark cares beside a few nitpicking baseball fans?    nothing they did was wrong or against the spirit of any "no betting on baseball" rules that mlb may have.
 
2014-08-08 12:09:26 PM  
Instead of money why not wager dinner or something similar? They could have made it look like one pal treating another.
 
2014-08-08 12:13:11 PM  

muwaryer: insano: muwaryer: I think it's a fair interpretation of "who shall bet...upon any baseball game." One could just as easily ask where in the rule does it state that it applies to something smaller than the game itself.

As others have pointed out, the interpretation of game as only the ultimate outcome of the game would open the league up to almost every other type of bet imaginable. Pitchers could bet that they will throw a strike, batters could bet that they will strike out, etc. The only reasonable interpretation is that game means every part of the game including the outcome.

Should these guys be banned? No, probably not. But that's the predicament you face when you allow for zero discretion in the rules.


Yeah...I agree.  Which is why I wrote pretty much exactly that in the next paragraph of my post.


So you think that the interpretation of game as 'only the outcome' is fair... except for all the ludicrous consequences of that interpretation. Got it.
 
2014-08-08 12:14:30 PM  

skrame: there are a thousand prop bets that are included. I still bet on the game.


Well, no, by the very definition of a prop bet, you bet on a proposition, not on the game.

skrame: When someone calls me and I'm at the Sox game, I say I'm at the game. I don't wait until eight and a half or nine innings are complete to say that.


You also don't say you're at the "Joe Kelly vs. Shelby Miller" matchup.

skrame: Relievers have a stat line for games; it doesn't mean full nine inning appearance


That's by convenience, not definition - it's a lot easier to say games than games appeared in. Remember, they were afraid of the GAIs when those stats were invented.

insano: How does one define "baseball game" without reference to the individual components of the game which led to the ultimate conclusion? The only game that would truly qualify is a cancelled game.


This is more like betting a boxer lands an uppercut during a bout. Maybe it makes a difference in the overall outcome, maybe it doesn't. But it's not directly tied to the outcome, nor is it betting on the outcome of a fight.
 
2014-08-08 12:15:52 PM  

A Fark Handle: there's nothing wrong with betting on baseball.


For the average individual fans, sure, maybe, I guess.   By participants in the contest itself, oh yea, there are lots of things wrong with that given that they can directly affect the outcome and therefore may have an incentive to act differently depending on how they wagered their own money. Even if they are betting on positive activity (players performing well and winning), it undermines the thought of legitimacy in a contest as how can you ensure that only positive events are being wagered? It inserts directly an unseemly activity that can cast into doubt the legitimacy of all outcomes.

Betting has destroyed many sports and leagues around the world. Look at lower level soccer in many regions and you can see confidence in the game by everyone has been destroyed.  You want to try and prevent that from occurring where you can and only a strong prohibition on participants in the contest can do that.  I am under no illusions that it isn't taking place at some level, but if it is discovered, you have to punish it severely.  The rules are fairly clear and at minimum there should be a 1 year ban imposed although maybe the commissioner can use his discretion to reduce it slightly given the absurdity and spirit of the wager.  It isn't proportional to the crime, but it is what is in the rules that everyone agrees to.
 
2014-08-08 12:18:21 PM  
Couldn't one compare this to an incentive based contract?  Are the owners not betting that players can't achieve such high standards by using such clauses.  If not, why wouldn't they just pay them the cash up-front?

/Believes Rose should be in the HOF
 
2014-08-08 12:18:43 PM  

insano: Gonz: A series of at-bats by one individual is not, by definition, a baseball game. It is part of what makes up a baseball game, but it is not a baseball game. That's the out here. That's the difference between a 3-game suspension and lifetime. If they'd bet $100 that Miller's team would beat Shelby's, then it's a lifetime ban. That's not what they bet, though.

How does one define "baseball game" without reference to the individual components of the game which led to the ultimate conclusion? The only game that would truly qualify is a cancelled game.


The Rules of Baseball don't actually have a definition of a game, per se. They say a regulation game is 9 innings.

From the definitions: "An INNING is that portion of a game within which the teams alternate on offense
and defense and in which there are three putouts for each team. Each team's time at bat is
a half-inning."

So, these guys didn't bet on a game, nor did they bet on the portion of the game which defines a game.
 
2014-08-08 12:26:47 PM  

Gonz: insano: Gonz: A series of at-bats by one individual is not, by definition, a baseball game. It is part of what makes up a baseball game, but it is not a baseball game. That's the out here. That's the difference between a 3-game suspension and lifetime. If they'd bet $100 that Miller's team would beat Shelby's, then it's a lifetime ban. That's not what they bet, though.

How does one define "baseball game" without reference to the individual components of the game which led to the ultimate conclusion? The only game that would truly qualify is a cancelled game.

The Rules of Baseball don't actually have a definition of a game, per se. They say a regulation game is 9 innings.

From the definitions: "An INNING is that portion of a game within which the teams alternate on offense
and defense and in which there are three putouts for each team. Each team's time at bat is
a half-inning."

So, these guys didn't bet on a game, nor did they bet on the portion of the game which defines a game.


There is no alternation of offense and defense without outs. There are no outs without at-bats. There are no at-bats without pitches.

I imagine that MLB will go through the same rhetorical gymnastics to justify not banning these players, but it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that there can be a game outcome without any pitches or at-bats occurring in the game.
 
2014-08-08 12:28:17 PM  

Daedalus27: A Fark Handle: there's nothing wrong with betting on baseball.

For the average individual fans, sure, maybe, I guess.   By participants in the contest itself, oh yea, there are lots of things wrong with that given that they can directly affect the outcome and therefore may have an incentive to act differently depending on how they wagered their own money. Even if they are betting on positive activity (players performing well and winning), it undermines the thought of legitimacy in a contest as how can you ensure that only positive events are being wagered? It inserts directly an unseemly activity that can cast into doubt the legitimacy of all outcomes.

Betting has destroyed many sports and leagues around the world. Look at lower level soccer in many regions and you can see confidence in the game by everyone has been destroyed.  You want to try and prevent that from occurring where you can and only a strong prohibition on participants in the contest can do that.  I am under no illusions that it isn't taking place at some level, but if it is discovered, you have to punish it severely.  The rules are fairly clear and at minimum there should be a 1 year ban imposed although maybe the commissioner can use his discretion to reduce it slightly given the absurdity and spirit of the wager.  It isn't proportional to the crime, but it is what is in the rules that everyone agrees to.


no. when two friends bet on a game of horse they aren't betting on a nba basketball game. to pretend that two friends making a friendly bet about a direct competition between them requires any punishment is laughable on its face.  who the fark cares?  no one with any sense of reason.  the mlb even looks in their direction, mlb would be wrong.
 
2014-08-08 12:34:53 PM  

IAmRight: insano: How does one define "baseball game" without reference to the individual components of the game which led to the ultimate conclusion? The only game that would truly qualify is a cancelled game.

This is more like betting a boxer lands an uppercut during a bout. Maybe it makes a difference in the overall outcome, maybe it doesn't. But it's not directly tied to the outcome, nor is it betting on the outcome of a fight.


It would actually be like the boxer betting that he himself would not land an uppercut, then going out and not attempting to land an uppercut.
 
2014-08-08 12:49:05 PM  

A Fark Handle: Daedalus27: A Fark Handle: there's nothing wrong with betting on baseball.

For the average individual fans, sure, maybe, I guess.   By participants in the contest itself, oh yea, there are lots of things wrong with that given that they can directly affect the outcome and therefore may have an incentive to act differently depending on how they wagered their own money. Even if they are betting on positive activity (players performing well and winning), it undermines the thought of legitimacy in a contest as how can you ensure that only positive events are being wagered? It inserts directly an unseemly activity that can cast into doubt the legitimacy of all outcomes.

Betting has destroyed many sports and leagues around the world. Look at lower level soccer in many regions and you can see confidence in the game by everyone has been destroyed.  You want to try and prevent that from occurring where you can and only a strong prohibition on participants in the contest can do that.  I am under no illusions that it isn't taking place at some level, but if it is discovered, you have to punish it severely.  The rules are fairly clear and at minimum there should be a 1 year ban imposed although maybe the commissioner can use his discretion to reduce it slightly given the absurdity and spirit of the wager.  It isn't proportional to the crime, but it is what is in the rules that everyone agrees to.

no. when two friends bet on a game of horse they aren't betting on a nba basketball game. to pretend that two friends making a friendly bet about a direct competition between them requires any punishment is laughable on its face.  who the fark cares?  no one with any sense of reason.  the mlb even looks in their direction, mlb would be wrong.


It would be rather difficult to have a game of horse in an NBA game given the other players on the court, but even this example may result in punishment under the NBA's own rules against players betting on games.  However to take your example did they carry it out in a game or on a neighborhood court, because the MLB rules in question have nothing to say about betting outside a game.  Now with the present incident, if these pitchers carried out the bet on a neighborhood little league field, nothing would be done. Instead, they decided to do so in a game they were facing each other in during a baseball game where individual matchups between players occur and where the outcome potentially could affect the wider game.

I am not saying a harsh punishment isn't absurd, but this is a private organization with its own rules and regulations that everyone agrees to in exchange for a chance to earn millions of dollars.  Players get punished for taking prohibited substances even if there is no possible affect on the game yet that is seen as acceptable in most cases. This is no different, they clearly violated one of the cardinal rules of baseball in that they made a bet on their performance in the game.
 
2014-08-08 12:50:38 PM  

insano: It would actually be like the boxer betting that he himself would not land an uppercut, then going out and not attempting to land an uppercut.


I see why you named yourself what you named yourself. What you say makes no damn sense.
 
2014-08-08 12:51:14 PM  

JohnnyRebel88: Couldn't one compare this to an incentive based contract?  Are the owners not betting that players can't achieve such high standards by using such clauses.  If not, why wouldn't they just pay them the cash up-front?


They are not betting the results of a game or any individual play within a game. The incentives don't say "Beat the Red Sox on July 27th and I'll give you $10,000". Instead they are based on cumulative statistics. In that light, a player betting that they would have more than 30 home runs in a year would be more acceptable (though perhaps not totally legal) than betting they would hit a home run in a specific game.
 
2014-08-08 12:58:07 PM  
Ok, that does it. Both the Cardinals and Red Sox now must forfeit their remaining games of the season.

/Go Brewers
 
2014-08-08 12:58:08 PM  

joeshill: dywed88: insano: gsiofa: Rule 21.d is about betting on the final outcome of a game, not betting on a possible at-bat that may or may not happen in the future, though it could affect the outcome. Really hard to identify how that is comparable to Pete Rose.

Where in the rule does it state - "This applies only to the outcome of the game."

I suppose the question is if the term "ball game" only entail the complete game or any segment thereof.

"No. No.  I never bet on final outcome.  I only bet on the individual outcome of specific plays. "

Ya.  That would totally work.


From a legal perspective, based solely on the wording, you could certainly make a case either way. I think the odds are betting on an aspect of a game would be cosidered betting on a ball game. But there is wiggle room.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report