Friday, March 30, 2007

Pesky Dilemma

I'm planning on doing a bigger post later today, but I wanted to get your thoughts on this story. Please weigh in, fellas.

2 comments:

Adam and Myisha Partridge said...

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm not sure of the purpose of the rule. I don't know why a team can't have 12 uniformed coaches in the dugout if they wanted to. Is this a resource issue? Can the rich teams like the Red Sox afford more coaches and therefore retain an advantage? Is having more coaches really an advantage? I don't really know.
Generally I'm opposed to these type of paternal rules, but again, don't have too strong of a feeling about it either way...

AJ said...

I'm not a fella-- can I comment anyway?

My problem is the article itself. It it about the stern hand of the MLB enforcing a long-standing rule? Or is it about evoking sympathy for the poor, poor Red Sox and Pesky.

As for the rule, I dunno... I guess having as many coaches as you want in the dugout would open up a big can of worms, right? The Dodgers have 8 but the Angels have 12. Doesn't Anaheim clearly have a one-up on them during games? So I suppose it makes sense.

The trick of it is, if the rule has been in existence for so long but is only NOW being heavily enforced, that's the kind of shit that pisses me off.