I disagree. Some players are worshipped by young fans and aspiring athletes. Condoning the use of performance enhancing substances might lead to mimicry. Youth sports should teach lots of lessons besides "Win at all costs!"
Isn't it more like...
Hit them hard. There's a full Football (sic) scolarship for you residing on this one play.
So "sign stealing" is legal, but using technology to signal the batsman isn't?
You USAians and your weird games.
Give me a break. Most sports have rules against using technology in an unusual or unsportsmanlike manner. For example, here's a quote of FIFA's Laws of the Game: "The use of radio communication systems between players and/or technical staff
is not permitted." So, yelling from the sidelines is allowed but signaling with technology isn't? Exactly.
OTOH, in US football, 'radio communication' allowed. Also, the use of instant replays to judge questionable calls is now common in basketball, baseball, and US football. It's all a matter of degree, so one can't really make broad generalizations.
I think that that fighting technology in sports is futile. And a bit Luddite.
Depends on the sport. In US football (NFL, NCAA football), there is limited acceptable use of headsets to communicate with certain authorized individuals (e.g., your quarterback on the field or a member of the coaching staff in a certain coaching suite).
Instant replay is a whole different matter. The calls can't be overturned by individual teams, they can only be questioned for further review by the officiating staff. For many professional USA sports, yes, that means that there's a group of individuals who are monitoring various video feeds and can alert the on-field coaching team to contest a call. However, the officiating crew only uses sanctioned video evidence, not random sources.
In this specific case, the question is really what video source are the Red Sox using? If they have someone in the center field stands with a telephoto lens who is iMessaging a Sox coach, well, yeah, that might be stepping over the line.
The main takeaway from this incident is that the Red Sox started communicating to the coaching staff during a game using a wearable connected device. MLB has banned cellphones, radios, and walkie-talkies from the dugout. If some outsider wants to send a message to the coaching staff during a game, there are only a handful of approved individuals (teammates, other coaching staff, club room attendants, etc.). It takes time to relay the message and in this particular case, quick delivery of the information is vital.
There is absolutely no way this works reliably enough to be the true story.
iPhones are banned. So Apple Watch, if it has connectivity at all, is going to struggle to deliver/receive messages. Plus, who are you relaying signs too? The batter can't stop and look at his Apple Watch. And you've got maybe 5 seconds from the time the sign is given to when the pitch is delivered.
Plus, this all hinges around a "rule" that technology can't be used to steal signs. Even though it is perfectly fine for a runner at second base to look at the signs and flash them to the batter.
So "sign stealing" is legal, but using technology to signal the batsman isn't?
You USAians and your weird games.
I think it should be allowed. Then the Pitcher and catcher can get headsets and someone can tell them what to throw. Then there's no signals to see to cheap. See how it all works out in the end.
True. They could use Ear Pods and an Apple Watch. It would look cool, too.
Comments
Hit them hard. There's a full Football (sic) scolarship for you residing on this one play.
Instant replay is a whole different matter. The calls can't be overturned by individual teams, they can only be questioned for further review by the officiating staff. For many professional USA sports, yes, that means that there's a group of individuals who are monitoring various video feeds and can alert the on-field coaching team to contest a call. However, the officiating crew only uses sanctioned video evidence, not random sources.
In this specific case, the question is really what video source are the Red Sox using? If they have someone in the center field stands with a telephoto lens who is iMessaging a Sox coach, well, yeah, that might be stepping over the line.
The main takeaway from this incident is that the Red Sox started communicating to the coaching staff during a game using a wearable connected device. MLB has banned cellphones, radios, and walkie-talkies from the dugout. If some outsider wants to send a message to the coaching staff during a game, there are only a handful of approved individuals (teammates, other coaching staff, club room attendants, etc.). It takes time to relay the message and in this particular case, quick delivery of the information is vital.
(With very few apologies to W. G. Grace.)
Seems a lot about nothing. But, great advertising for Apple.
iPhones are banned. So Apple Watch, if it has connectivity at all, is going to struggle to deliver/receive messages. Plus, who are you relaying signs too? The batter can't stop and look at his Apple Watch. And you've got maybe 5 seconds from the time the sign is given to when the pitch is delivered.
Plus, this all hinges around a "rule" that technology can't be used to steal signs. Even though it is perfectly fine for a runner at second base to look at the signs and flash them to the batter.
I was referring to an earlier episode with the Patriots where they had an issue similar to sign-stealing.
(Nice pun, though!)