"And the bases were loaded".
"Well, in this case, are they getting calls because they have something on the line?" These days, the Kangaroo Court is a clubhouse relic of the past, but we're here to revive it and to bring the mechanisms of baseball justice to bear on present-day dust-ups, hostilities, and close calls.
"I think we felt like there was a discrepancy in the strike zone between the two teams early in the game", Ausmus said.
In his argument with Wolcott, Ausmus could be heard saying, "Don't get caught up in the Cleveland Indians winning 20 games".
The announcers, according to Ausmus, implied that the Tigers had intentionally hit home plate umpire Quinn Wolcott shortly after he ejected Ausmus and catcher James McCann in the third inning. Arguing balls and strikes is a no-no. An automatic ejection, technically, though umps usually give players and managers some leeway. John Hicks took over at catcher for Detroit. Sep. He went down in pain. Everyone with the Tigers of course denied it.
"I heard the Indians broadcast". To imply that that was intentional is, first of all, a lie. "If any player intentionally tried to hurt an umpire on this team, we'd deal with it severely". But for anyone to imply that that was intentional, that's completely wrong.
"It shouldn't be a question", he said. "Any thought of us trying to do that on objective is just ridiculous".
The crowd booed and reacted like the Tigers had hit Wolcott on objective.
"It never got that far", Ausmus said. His first pitch after the walk certainly raised eyebrows. It shouldn't even be a thought from anybody that Hicks and I would do that.
Mike Axisa: No, though it certain looks more suspicious than usual given the circumstances. The ball missed Hicks's glove and hit Wolcott in the chest. Were Farmer and Hicks upset by the strike zone and the ejections? As such, I don't feel comfortable accusing the Tigers of this without harder evidence.
Ausmus came out of the dugout and stepped between Wolcott and McCann and was eventually ejected as well. The most damning bit of circumstantial evidence for me is that Hicks didn't check on the umpire, even after he'd retrieved the ball. It looked suspicious. That said, there's plausible deniability.
Hicks had just been thrown in the game with no notice, hadn't caught in nearly two weeks and the Tigers were using a special set of signs with runners on base. This looked bad to me at the time, but, again, I'm not comfortable saying the Tigers did something this serious without stronger evidence. I'm also uncomfortable trying to guess what's in a person's head. "We deserve the same pitches called a strike that they are getting".