Doesn’t Rick Reilly Have Anything Better to do?
I rarely read Rick Reilly’s columns on ESPN.com. I’ve always found his pieces to be highly critical items of little substance whose sole position was to imply a morally superior position when his is often anything but. But, I don’t bitch about him. I refrain from bashing Mr. Reilly even though I find it quite pretentious that you can’t find one of his articles online without a tidbit about the 11 Sportswriter of the Year accolades he’s won invariably floating around the page in a conspicuously impossible-to-ignore spot.
But, after checking out his latest article, I have to make an exception. In short, Reilly’s latest digital version of Charmin substitute absolutely rips the softball coach of a Minnesota women’s softball coach for winning a game on the technicality of an obscure (and likely widely uninforced) rule.
Some things are so small, so minuscule, so atomically insignificant, they can be seen only from three feet away using the Hubble telescope. The heart of Jean Musgjerd is one of these things.
She’s the women’s softball coach for Rochester (Minn.) Community and Technical College. Here’s what Coach Musgjerd did — and try to keep your lunch from rising up as you read:
It’s this past May’s Minnesota College Athletic Conference state tourney, and Central Lakes College is tied with Rochester, 0-0, bottom of the seventh and final inning. Central Lakes pitcher Olivia Graham has her first no-hitter going. Now, with Central Lakes at bat, she just has to hope her team can score a run to lock it up.
Sure enough, Central’s freshman first baseman, Ashly Erickson, rips one over the fence. Game over. Madness erupts. As Erickson and her cantaloupe smile round third, some teammates high-five her. It’s the greatest moment in her short softball life.
But when she touches the plate, the Rochester players begin shouting, “That’s an out! She’s out!” Then Musgjerd helpfully tells the ump that Erickson should be out since, according to the rules, teammates aren’t allowed to “touch a batter or baserunner legally running the bases.”
(The first time I read the first sentence, I mistook ‘atomically’ for ‘anatomically’ and I mistakenly thought that Reilly was leading into an expose piece about a particularly small organ belonging to a certain NHL commissioner.)
Source: Jenniefinch.net
So this is what an 11-time Sportswriter of the Year writes about? Community college women’s softball? Are you kidding me? Other than Jennie Finch, is there anything interesting about this sport?
The thing is, Reilly is wrong. I happen to have an experience eerily similar to the one described in his article. I’ve been in the somewhat unique position that Olivia Graham and Ashly Erickson were in.
Back in 1993, I was an eighth grader playing baseball on a travelling team similar to what’s commonly referred to as Pony League. There were about a dozen teams from the surrounding area, including two from our city. There were the Braves, the top team from our town, and there was our team, the Reds, who were basically the kids leftover who didn’t make the Braves team but still wanted to play ball that summer.
The prior year, I tried out for the Braves team as a seventh grader and was cut after tryouts. The reason was simply that on that Braves team, there were only a few roster spots open – as there were a bunch of kids with secured spots because of the fact that they’d made the team as seventh graders the year prior. Neither the coach nor his son, who also happened to be in my grade, liked me very well, and I basically felt the same way about the two of them. After being cut, I wound up on the worse of the two ‘reject’ teams and we won exactly one game that season.
Well, I hold grudges.
Long before the following summer I’d already decided that I wasn’t going to play for the Braves coach since he’d cut me last year. He and my dad talked periodically during the offseason whenever their paths crossed; it was apparent from their conversations that he was looking forward to having another tall, left handed pitcher on his team.
Well, I had other ideas. During the course of the seventh grade season, I’d met the coach of the other scrub team from my town and I decided that I’d rather play for him the following year if he was still the coach. So instead of trying out for the Braves, I held out, simply stating that I decided not to play. After tryouts were over, I called the coach of the Reds, who had a stepson in my grade and told him I wanted to try out for his team. This was met with contempt of course from the son of the Braves coach and all of the other kids on his team that I knew. But I didn’t care. I had one motivation that year. To beat the Braves and make that coach regret cutting me the year before.
We played them three times that year. The first game we were competitive, but we still lost pretty handily. I hit a two-run homer in the first inning, which was cool, but we got beat anyway.
The second game we got beat so bad they imposed the ‘mercy’ rule after we fell behind by 10 runs.
We played those guys one last time on the last game of the regular schedule, right before the end-of-season tournament.
I pitched a complete game and as a team we played our best game offensively and defensively, and we won, with their coach’s son pitching no less. We beat the Braves.
But in the end, we actually lost.
We had a practice before the first game of the tournament. Before we left that evening, coach pulled us together and we took a knee.
“A couple of you guys have asked about why Dave (our shortstop) wasn’t here tonight.” Coach, whose demeanor was usually pretty low-key anyway, was especially soft-spoken when addressing us that night.
Coach went on to explain that there was a rule that kids over a certain age weren’t allowed to play. Dave was 15 at the time and his birthday was well past the cutoff for eligibility. As a result, we lost every game in which he played – all 16 of them – by forfeit. We were the Detroit Lions of our league, going 0-16.
The timing for this revelation was suspect to say the least. Everyone on the team knew how old Dave was; in reality he was only a few months older than the other eighth graders on the team. None of the players were aware of the cutoff, though.
It turned out that it was the coach of the Braves who sold Dave out. He knew about the age violation since Dave had tried out for his squad prior to being cut and send to play for the Reds, and had to present a birth certificate to do so. He knew that Dave was too old the entire season, but never said anything because they’d beaten us the first two times we played them. It wasn’t until we beat them that he ratted us out. Had we lost that final game against them, he wouldn’t have said anything, as it wouldn’t have benefited him to do so. I guess it was worth sacrificing his own integrity and the morale of a bunch of teenagers in order to win a game against a group of kids that he rejected. A game that he rightfully should have won handily.
But in the end, the coach of the Braves was within his rights to take the action he did, and got one more ‘W’ and one less ‘L’ on paper. Whether the action from a sportsmanship standpoint was justified, and if his reputation was subsequently tarnished is subjective.
Coach asked us how we felt about losing every game, to which I answered that I didn’t care what it said on paper. We beat them on the diamond, and that’s all that mattered.
Source: mostbeautifulwoman.com
So, was Jean Musgjerd out of line to win a game on such a technicality? No. Her job is to win. According to the rules, the umpires are the ones in error, as they incorrectly called the batter out instead of taking the more appropriate action of issuing a warning.
Should Musgjerd forfeit the win as Reilly suggests? Maybe, but probably not. We already have significant precedent for the outcomes of sporting events being determined by umpire/official/referee error. Even championship games and the Olympics are subject to such an element. Does the League or governing body go back and reverse the final results to reflect the correct outcome? No, they don’t. Even if they acknowledge that an egregious mistake has been made, they leave it as is. Have you ever heard of a coach of a winning team ‘doing what’s right’ and giving victory to the team that deserves it? I know I haven’t.
Rick Reilly is wrong. The call on the field stands.
Mike, have to say I agree with Rick, and yes there are a few things interesting about women’s softball that all sports share: competition, sportsmanship – you know that human drama of athletic competition thing? It certainly has as much going for it as your Pony league baseball story. Jean’s job isn’t to win, it’s to be a college teacher and coach. Pardon to Vince Lombardi, but at that level winning isn’t the only thing, and not even the most important thing to teach the young adults you have under your care.
And I guess the Jenny Finch comment, misogynistic as it was, would be par for the course given the title of your blog.
Finally, go Pens! They had the Cup over at Mario’s house this weekend for a team celebration. A good time was had by all.
Eric,
Look up the definition of satire: “trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.”
You’re wrong. At every level from high school varsity and above, the coach’s job is to win. You learn having fun and competition and sportsmanship at the younger ages when it is all about the experience. These are college athletes – most of whom are probably on some sort of scholarship program. Losing hurts the program – it decreases attendance which decreases revenue. Losing is also bad for recruitment – which leads to more losing (I am talking about college athletics in general, not necessarily women’s softball). Colleges, even community colleges have athletic programs for the betterment of the institution, not the other way around.
Simply put, “Jean’s job isn’t to win, it’s to be a college teacher and coach,” is something that a loser would say. Ask Pat Summitt or Bob Knight about the importance of winning.
Dude look up the definition of misogyny. It is plainly a hatred of women. What are you, some kind of hippie bleeding heart tree-hugger?
I didn’t make a comment about the sport. I asked if there was anything interesting about women’s softball. The answer is yes, there is, but only when there is a championship on the line. Other than that, softball is about as interesting as one of Reilly’s over-recycled plays on words.
Enjoy the cup.
You completely missed the point of Reilly’s article.
Getting called out because of slapping 5’s with your teammates as you went down the third baseline after hitting a walk-off homer is cheap and it’s a cheap way to win a game (regardless of the correct ruling). Reilly was right about the coach who was probably sitting on that little nugget until it could be used against the other team.
You know, that rule applies in MLB too. Basecoaches are not allow to touch the runner. That rule gets violated every time there is a walk-off homer and the team gathers at home plate. The rule is in place to keep players who are running hard from getting a little help from the coach if they are rounding first or third too quickly.
The coach’s job is to win, yes. But how many coaches in college who had GOOD winning percentages were FIRED because of the reputation that they brought to their schools by going easy on student/criminals or saying the wrong thing to the press? Yes, a win is important, but the only thing I know about that coach and her school is that they got all rule-booky and snagged a cheap win. The couldn’t win on the field, they had to win in the textbook. One win, in exchange for your SCHOOL’S REPUTATION. Let’s ask the school and the alumni if it’s worth it.
I don’t think that you have a position to judge Rick Reilly as being “right or wrong” considering you already have a certain level of disdain/jealousy in regards to what he does. Maybe that’s why you have a blog and he’s won 11 national awards. It seems like everyone who has a level of success that is greater than yours gets a thumbs-down in your Court of Opinion – hence, you’re little revenge trip in Little League. You say the coach and the son didn’t like you… sounds like they got to know you.
Uh. No. You are completely wrong. Period. It is not simply the job of a University Coach to “win”.
Roger Clemens thought his job was to “win”.
Every NCAA program who finds themselves on probation thought it was their job to “win”.
It is a coach’s job to assist their team to produce the best of themselves that they can, and in so doing, assist them in “winning”, sure.. but it’s also a coach’s job to set an example of sportsmanship and decency so that his or her players understand that “winning at any cost” is not acceptable. The line between misleading an umpire by incorrectly quoting a rule and encouraging players to use steroids and otherwise cheat is very small.
This coach is pathetic. End of story. She is everything that is wrong with College Athletics. Her example is hardly something to emulate by her players.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
Let’s look at this another way.
Let’s say the girl missed third base after hitting the ball out of the park. The umpires miss it but the coach in question comes running out of the dugout and insists that her pitcher have the chance to throw to third base and tag the base. Then let’s say the umpire BELIEVES HER and calls the batter out.
She hit the ball over the fence, yet (perceivedly) broke a rule while rounding the bases and should be declared out.
The issue here is not that the coach incorrectly demanded the batter to be called out. The real problem is the umpire believing her when he/she obviously didn’t know the rule. If I were the umpire, and I didn’t know the rule, I wouldn’t be calling a batter out in such a circumstance unless I was pretty damn sure it was the right call.
What you guys are saying is that close enough is good enough to win. The high five rule is a stupid rule, but that isn’t the point. But, I can’t think of any rules in baseball that are open to interpretation. There are umpires for judgment calls, like balls and strikes and such, but baseball rules are pretty much written in the “If a then b”, black and white mentality.
Ask yourself this. Suppose Musgjerd was right and that the batter was supposed to be out. Does that change your opinion? Also keep in mind that this was a tournament game, not some front end of a double header in the middle of the season. You can’t fault a person for winning cheaply. Not only that, the call did not win or lose the game for either team. It simply allowed the game to remain tied. If the home team had went on to win anyway, no one would have paid any attention.
If that’s not being results oriented, I don’t know what is.
And as long as we’re being introspective, also ask yourself this: What if the home plate umpire was the only person in the park who knew the rule. The ump witnesses an obvious violation (and for argument’s sake, the batter is supposed to be called out as a result). The by-the-book decision is there. Should he/she make the right call or let it go? I think he’s pretty much obligated to enforce the rule – as unpopular with Rick Reilly as that will undoubtedly make him.
Me personally, I’d let it go. But the point of this wasn’t to state my opinion on the situation.
Reilly’s premise is that the rules of the game are subject to approval by the coaches involved; that Coach Musgjerd should have not accepted the win because it was a stupid rule. Tell that to Bill Belichick and the 2001/2002 New England Patriots, who won their AFC Divisional playoff game against Oakland and subsequently went on to win the Super Bowl courtesy of a technicality known as the Tuck Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule).
@Adam: you said:
“Reilly was right about the coach who was probably sitting on that little nugget until it could be used against the other team.”
Dude there’s no way for you or Reilly to know this. It’s speculative and unfair. The article states that the players started yelling as soon as it happened, THEN the coach came out. Reilly is implying that she should have quieted her team down and said to the umpire, yeah, we knew that was against the rules, but don’t call her out. The woman has been the coach there for like 15 years. Isn’t it at least as likely that she told her players about the rule – not to point it out when the opportunity presents itself but to keep them from breaking it themselves? That sounds like good coaching to me.
@Rob H:
You analogies are not valid. The coach was wrong in her knowledge of the rule – but she wasn’t knowingly violating any rules by (erroneously) pointing it out to the umpire. Cheap and petty? Maybe, but not illegal. Coaches complain and are wrong all the time. It’s the umpire’s duty to know what’s right and take control. Coaches have ethics codes and standards of practice – they have to win within certain parameters. This is not a situation of winning at any cost. It’s simply a case where she wanted a rule enforced. Comparing this to blatant cheating – either steroids or recruiting violations or whatever is not the same thing.
My problem with Reilly is that he takes a position of moral superiority in basically everything he writes (this used to be the case, anyway – I hardly read him now). What many people might not realize is that this actually occurred about six weeks ago, but he’s just now writing about it. He undoubtedly wrote the article when it happened, then hung onto it and waited until he was out of material and needed something. Normally with sports, this is hard to pull off because almost everything in the sports world is so time sensitive and most stories are replaced daily… but it works here because this is a story about women’s community college softball and the fact that it’s old news is irrelevant because no one probably knew about it (even though Deadspin had a piece on it dated May 5th).
@Adam:
You said:
“I don’t think that you have a position to judge Rick Reilly as being “right or wrong” considering you already have a certain level of disdain/jealousy in regards to what he does. Maybe that’s why you have a blog and he’s won 11 national awards. It seems like everyone who has a level of success that is greater than yours gets a thumbs-down in your Court of Opinion – hence, you’re little revenge trip in Little League. You say the coach and the son didn’t like you… sounds like they got to know you.”
There’s no jealousy – I just don’t care for the position that he usually takes. It’s not that big of a deal – he’s relatively easy to ignore. Whenever anyone posts an opinion piece that I disagree with, I have a obligation to write about it. It’s the point of sports and sports writing, whether you write for SI or you have a tiny little blog that seems to be a magnet for prudes and Pittsburgh fans. The point is to create dialogue. Interaction between sports fans is the greatest thing about it. It doesn’t really matter who’s right, as long as your intelligent about it. You should know this as well as anyone. You took the time to not only read my article, then you continued the process by engaging me. If my work sucked, you’d have moved on. It doesn’t matter who you are, or who I am, or who Rick Reilly is. The point is to engage. Rick did his part, I did mine and now you are doing yours.
You are correct. The coach and his son knew me since elementary school when we lived a block apart, and knew me well. They also didn’t like me, but that’s to be expected. Most flaky people don’t.
Later
I appreciate your attitude with respect to your team’s forfeited games. But there’s a big difference between your situation and Musgjerd. Your team used an above age player, which definitely can affect the outcome. Reilly is mad, not because the softball rule is tiny, but because it impossible for it to have affected the game here. If I was a coach, there is no way I would sit by idly if the other team used an illegal player. But would you really try to call back a home run based on a celebration?
You’re digging your hole deeper Mike, and might I say it looks like its a pretty big hole to begin with.
Haven’t you ever seen the NCAA ads – “Almost all college athletes go pro in something other than sports”? Ask Joe Paterno what his job is – or Bob Knight or Pat Summit for that matter as well! The coaches who think their job is only to win are the ones that end up in the most trouble, and I think that’s true at almost ANY amatuer athlete level, be it micro soccer for 6 year olds or top flight college programs. Even at the pro level winning isn’t the only thing – at least most people I admire recognize that grace, humility and sportsmanship play a large role in athletics. And if you think that any of these softball players in a JuCo conference are on scholarship you’re nuts! I know Division I athletes at major schools who get no financial aid – largely because their sport doesn’t generate enough revenue to pay for itself. I don’t think Rochester’s football and/or basketball program (if they even have them) generates any significant revenue. And if you think that the “betterment of the institution” is achieved by having the sole focus of winning above all else – you can’t really think that it will indeed better the institution, can you? Somehow I don’t think that Coach Musgjerd’s recruiting efforts will be bolstered by this episode, as most, if not all, parents of student-athletes will realize, and rightfully so, that having a singular focus on winning above all else is not the way to go. In her defense, though, it isn’t fair to portray her entire coaching career through the myopic image of this one event – she’s probably a pretty good coach who made a mistake, but hopefully one who will learn from it.
And your quote was: “Other than Jennie Finch, is there anything interesting about this sport?” At least you are willing to admit that if there is a championship on the line it would be interesting – to me that qualifies as human drama of athletic competition. I’m glad Jennie has thicker skin than you do. And no, I’m not a hippie bleeding heart tree hugger, just a parent and sports fan who thinks anyone who portends to be a serious (even though satirical) commentator on sports in our society should leave the sexist comments on the sideline. Either that’s too much to ask for or I am wrong – you aren’t trying to be taken seriously.
OK, I’ll weigh in on your other comments, I was typing my earlier response before I saw them.
Take the tagging up and leaving base too early rule. The umpire has to see it, is charged with watching for it, but can’t call it unless the play is appealed. That to me seems appropriate. Similarly, if a runner misses a base (or home plate) the play has to be appealed, and it has happened often enough that that’s why even though teammates crowd the plate they don’t converge on the walk-off-dinger-hitter until they have jumped on the plate. No sympathy for enforcing that rule.
I do agree that given the case at hand the umpires were in the wrong, for being talked into a call and moreover for being talked into the WRONG call, when the rule provides for a warning. If the rule had been written like the MLB rule, where the intent to assist the baserunner must be present, (so a coach slapping skin with a baserunner doesn’t violate the rule) this is still a bad call. If the rule is written that “any contact with a coach or player while rounding the bases is an out” in absolute terms – I’d change my opinion but at the same time say it’s a bad rule. Finally, I disagree with your comment on interpretation – the application of the rules in almost every material instance requires interpretation by an umpire or referee: what was the pitcher’s intent in throwing behind a batter? did the pickoff move constitute a balk?
And in response to you comment to Adam – the only thing I can say is that people watch car wrecks while they are driving by, even though they don’t like ‘em. It’s one thing to put your opinion out there, but if you can’t take the heat you need not be in the kitchen. Face it, not everyone is going to agree with you, and that doesn’t mean we’re wrong. It may indicate you’re a little arrogant with your position, however.
@ DG:
Now you’re asking me what I’d do in that situation. No one has done that – and generally I try to refrain from such commentary because it’s impossible to speculate. But since you asked, I’d have had my players on the bus before she rounded 3rd base (actually they’d be in the handshake line patiently waiting – just so I don’t get 1500 emails from prudes).
I just said that my experience was similar. We had a win (technically eight) taken away from us because of a technicality – that we were guilty of – but a technicality none the less. The thing is, the Braves coach could have informed the League about Dave’s age at the beginning of the season – because he knew all along. Calling Dave out at the end was only done because it got him an extra win. It wasn’t to negate any unfair advantage that having Dave on the team provided.
@ Eric:
What hole? I don’t follow. The fact that you are willing to keep the conversation going is all the validation I need. I don’t need to convince you, or anyone else of anything.
Do you have tunnel-vision or do you just simply ignore most of what you read? I wrote that my comment about scholarships wasn’t necessarily directed at women’s softball. JuCo’s do offer athletic scholarships, though – at least some do. The extent of that I am not sure of. It isn’t relevant, anyway.
I didn’t ‘admit’ anything. I said that pretty much any championship event – no matter what the sport – is interesting – if you’re a sports fan anyhow.
I’ve been to women’s softball games in person – and not only is the action boring as hell, listening to their repetitive dugout chants over and over would lead me to seriously consider drilling out my eardrums before the game if I ever had to go again. I would rather listen to the sound of Clay Aiken sodomizing a Doberman Pinscher for three hours than have to endure those obnoxious chants grinding their way through my ear canals.
But playoffs – when the game actually matters – are fun to watch because you know you getting the best both that sides has to offer.
You want colorless sports commentary? Go read any of the blogs on Yahoo! Sports. It is too much to ask to think that I shouldn’t use an article on softball as an excuse to post some pictures of a sexy young woman. I’m sorry, you and I don’t seem to seeing eye to eye – My wife doesn’t get to keep my balls in a mason jar, and I say whatever the hell I want to. Maybe you can’t identify with that.
This is serious sports satire – commentary that is intended to be fun, engaging, humorous and hopefully is found to be reasonably intelligent and well written. It’s obviously not for everyone.
Yeah… with “The Sports Dick” as my moniker I am really trying to be called to guest on Joe Buck’s new show on HBO. Did you see that the other day BTW??? Artie Lange was f****n’ hilarious!!!
If mindless banter is all you need for validation then so be it, I was perhaps looking for a little meaningful discourse on a topic I found interesting. I disagreed with your original premise and told you so, I’m sorry it has devolved into this.
For what its worth, I think the manager of the Braves was an ass – I never liked those “let’s sit on this arcane rule until we see if it helps us” kind of coaches. I don’t see that as a technical rule – let’s face it you don’t want kids 3 or 4 years older beating up on the small fry but he coulda been a better sport about it. I’ll also agree with part of your assessment of Artie’s “appearance” on JBuck’s show. Best regards.
There’s nothing mindless about anything anyone’s posted – including you. I think every comment was well thought out – I don’t think the conversation devolved at all. Why would you think that? Because we got a little testy? C’mon man… – it’s all in good fun. You could have commented on one of the millions of other blogs where the writer doesn’t even respond (or post your comment) if you’re critical of him.
I like people to engage and challenge my work – it keeps me honest. I think I’ve defended my position well enough – whether anyone agrees or not is not really relevant.
I don’t remember exactly – I think Dave missed the cutoff by like 4 months or so… not several years. The rule is the rule though. The ironic thing is that if the Braves coach thought his age was such an advantage, why didn’t he just keep him when he tried out? Our coach didn’t even know how old he was – and probably would have never found out.
Not arrogant. I post pieces that I think will generate responses – that doesn’t mean I don’t believe what I say – I just think that there’s enough fluff out there already and I don’t see a need to add to that. I would never post an opinion I wasn’t prepared to defend. Just look at the NHL posts from the past couple of weeks to illustrate that.
I am glad you stopped by and responded – hopefully you’ll subscribe and we can have feisty discussions in the future!
Later
Well after seeing your earlier piece on the Pens/NHL conspiracy maybe I will stay around and try and teach you a thing or two . . . .
There’s a certain irony to your claim that women’s college softball isn’t very exciting when you spend the next twenty some-odd paragraphs talking about how interesting and memorable your own little league game was.
Sorry, but your example and Reilly’s are apples and oranges. Your team deserved to forfeit every game. It’s the job of your coach to know the rules. He didn’t, and as a result you guys lost. And rightfully so.
Now when it comes to the softball game, I’d have to see a rule book. When I played baseball we knew not to touch the player who hit the home run until he touched home plate or else he’d be out. If that’s the rule, then it’s mickey mouse shit but the ump did the right thing. If he’s only supposed to issue a warning, then maybe the losing team can appeal and get it overturned.
Either way, I don’t see this as an issue of bad sportsmanship. Rules are there for a reason, and if you don’t follow them you pay the price. But I agree, it must’ve been a slow week for Reilly if he’s dredging that stuff up.
Oh, and I agree the whole point of sports at the high school varsity level and up is to win. That doesn’t mean you should cheat, but the whole point is winning. Sportsmanship is great, but it’s nothing without the “W.” Coaches and players should do everything possible within the rules of the game to win. I’m so sick of this emphasis on “it’s how you play the game” even at the higher levels of sports. I don’t care how the game is played, I care about a win. It’s people who want to give medals and ribbons to everyone no matter the outcome who piss me off and raise the level of mediocrity instead of promoting excellence.
DF,
I think you’ve reiterated my points in such a way that perhaps everyone else might actually get it.
Or maybe not. But ‘Bravo’ is deserved in any case.
Later.
What a lame argument.
I’m sorry, it does matter how you win. Only jerks win on technicality. Enjoy your moment in the sun – your classlessness will last a lifetime (and maybe beyond).
Champions win because they earn a win. Throwing a no hitter and hitting a walk off home run is what the game is about – not whether you pass cooties along to another player. Letting people win on crap like this is exactly what mediocrity is all about – bring down the successful through legalism.