Kelly gets 6 games

[Jack Flap]

Joe Kelly "charged" Tyler Austin with a 97.7 mph fastball. Austin charged the mound without a weapon.

In my jurisdiction a baseball could be considered a deadly weapon as used.

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

[Bellhorn04]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

Well said JF.

[cp176]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

I think that this is a great post! It is an angle I certainly have not thought of. Harmony has repeatedly tried to paint Kelly as the primary villain here. If people want to think that possibly Austin went into that bag not having the primary purpose being to nail Holt with his spikes up then I guess when Kelly says he did not intentionally hit Austin and that the pitch just got away with him it is just as easily believable as well. No one I hope wants to see these guys injured this way, but as is normally the case there will be more than side to most stories. I like yours the best!

[Slasher9]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

Post of the day.

[Maxbialystock]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

Mr johnny-come-lately concurs with the talksox brain trust. Great post.

[FredLynn]

I think that this is a great post! It is an angle I certainly have not thought of. Harmony has repeatedly tried to paint Kelly as the primary villain here. If people want to think that possibly Austin went into that bag not having the primary purpose being to nail Holt with his spikes up then I guess when Kelly says he did not intentionally hit Austin and that the pitch just got away with him it is just as easily believable as well. No one I hope wants to see these guys injured this way, but as is normally the case there will be more than side to most stories. I like yours the best!

I don't think Austin intentionally tried to spike Holt. For me the issue is that he should have been more careful about in which direction his spikes were pointed. Its like in hockey-a player is responsible for where his stick ends up. He gets called for high sticking if his stick strikes another player in the face regardless of whether it was an accident or not. Austin is guilty of being careless, and his carelessness could have resulted in a severe injury. He paid for it in a small way by getting plunked in the back.

[notin]

A six-game suspension for a reliever who has appeared in only five games is less than a five-game suspension for a position player who has appeared in 10 games.

C'mon, accountant!!!! You can do better!!!

Kelly was suspended for 117% of his games of while Austin lost only 50% of his!!

Beung serious, the 5 game suspension for a position player and 6 game suspension for a pitcher are pretty standard...

[harmony]

The difference, in my mind, is that it's literally Joe Kelly's job to hurl baseballs in the general direction of human beings, and that the hitter assumes this risk every time they step into the batter's box - which is why the pitcher always has some element of plausible deniability ("It just got away from me") when these things happen. If Kelly was deliberately headhunting, I might agree with you, but to me, a plunking on the back falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not.

But charging the mound and throwing punches at people? Always 100% intentional and within the batter's control, and IMO, whatever happens after that point is on you. Austin incited the entire incident and behaved like a punk from beginning to end, from getting up in Holt's face when he questioned the slide (if it was such an innocent play, why not a simple "My bad, bro. You okay?" and everyone moves on) to sucker-punching Febles during the brawl, and probably deserved a harsher penalty than what he got. Normally I find all of this business of retaliation and counter-retaliation pretty stupid, but I have a hard time finding fault with what the Red Sox did here.

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

[cp176]

I don't think Austin intentionally tried to spike Holt. For me the issue is that he should have been more careful about in which direction his spikes were pointed. Its like in hockey-a player is responsible for where his stick ends up. He gets called for high sticking if his stick strikes another player in the face regardless of whether it was an accident or not. Austin is guilty of being careless, and his carelessness could have resulted in a severe injury. He paid for it in a small way by getting plunked in the back.

I think that an interpretation of that particular slide just depends on how we saw it. The view I got from the left field camera left no doubt in my mind that the spikes were up , they were no where near the bag,and they were directly in line with Holt's leg. Maybe Austin was hoping that Holt would avoid his cleats. I kind of wish that I saw it differently because I'm going to have a hard time looking at this kid as anything other than a punk from now on. Kind of how I look at Machado I guess.

[cp176]

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

You certainly are trying to make this sound educated but sadly most of this falls squarely within the confines of something that most of us would consider bullshit. When a baserunner initiates contact with his spikes up - that is not something that just accidentally happens.

[moonslav59]

I agree that a hitter assumes some risk when he steps into the batter's just as an infielder (or catcher) assumes some risk of an incoming runner. The pitcher's job is to throw in the general direction of the batter just as the runner's job is to advance to the next base. A runner's contact with an infielder "falls squarely within the category of things that may happen at a baseball game, intentionally or not."

The issue may come down to intent. Juries every day are asked to distinguish intent from recklessness in deciding whether a homicide was murder or manslaughter.

A hypothetical jury could determine that Tyler Austin and Joe Kelly acted with intent but the evidence against the latter appears more obvious. The posters on this forum are lauding Kelly for his intentional conduct, not his reckless conduct.

I concur that Austin deserves the stiffer suspension for charging the mound and throwing punches.

Why? Kelly intentioanally hit him for doing nothing, except maybe being a little reckless, and he should respond in kind.

I'm 100% convinced he raised his spikes on purpose, and he was not aiming twoards the base in any way. How can that not be as clear as day?

[moonslav59]

You certainly are trying to make this sound educated but sadly most of this falls squarely within the confines of something that most of us would consider bullshit. When a baserunner initiates contact with his spikes up - that is not something that just accidentally happens.

Had his raised foot been aimed at 2B, it possibly could be viewed as a mistake, but even then I'd be doubtful.

This was intentional as can be.

[harmony]

Had his raised foot been aimed at 2B, it possibly could be viewed as a mistake, but even then I'd be doubtful.

This was intentional as can be.

Tyler Austin's foot was pretty much on the ground when Brock Holt's foot made contact and lifted Austin's foot up and even more away from the base. At :31:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uFpLiDNzQ

However, Austin's spikes were up.

Mookie Betts' spikes were not up on this slide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP9moRNvVPE

... but the slide possibly violated more than one provision of the current rule (which was not in place when Betts made his slide in 2015):

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/slide-rule

[cp176]

Had his raised foot been aimed at 2B, it possibly could be viewed as a mistake, but even then I'd be doubtful.

This was intentional as can be.

This is so accurate. There is absolutely no question about the foot being in the air and aimed at Holt.

[moonslav59]

Tyler Austin's foot was pretty much on the ground when Brock Holt's foot made contact and lifted Austin's foot up and even more away from the base. At :31:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33uFpLiDNzQ

I disagree. It was off the ground slightly. His foot was also at least a foot and a half to the infield side of 2B (off the base and aimed directly at Holt's leg).

It was not a fluke mistake. He was aiming for Holt's leg. It was "intentional" not "reckless".

He deserved to be plunked. A suspension will not keep a punk from doing it again. Getting plunked might make him think twice next time.