|
="Edgy DC":3n5u8y7v]Depends on who "they" are. He seems confused as to whether the order came from Mets staff or St. John's.
And what "they" can do and what they should do are two different things.[/quote:3n5u8y7v]
I'm not sure it matters whether it was the Mets or St. John's. I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for the Mets to dictate what's inappropriate attire for the press. And if St. John's or whomever was employing this guy wanted to dictate what was appropriate or not -- also sounds fine to me.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 01:08 AM
|
|
The St. John's student, himself, doesn't know who's to blame for his ejection.
It would bother me if it turned out that the Mets tossed the kid. I would hope that the Mets couldn't dictate dress code to a press pass recipient, at least in the heavy-handed way the dress code (assuming there is one) might have been enforced in this incident. I could see it if the guest thought he was entitled to appear naked, or in one of those notorious Anna Benson get-ups. But over a Phillies jacket? Would the Mets eject Roger Angell if he were to cover a game wearing a Phillies cap while on assignment for The New Yorker?
Does a press pass recipient have less rights than an attendee who enters the stadium with a paid ticket?
Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle?
|
Edgy DC
Apr 02 2009 05:38 AM
|
|
Gotta thinkthat if it was a Mets jacket on a St. Joe's student at Citizen's Bank, we'd think he was ill treated.
|
Nymr83
Apr 02 2009 06:12 AM
|
|
It seems fairly clear from his posting that it was St. Johns, not the New York Mets, who complained about his jacket.
And he wasn't kicked out as he claims, by his own words he chose to leave, no security guards in tow.
|
soupcan
Apr 02 2009 07:33 AM
|
|
Stupid story by a stupid kid who can't see the forest for the trees. Risking his job to wear a jacket advertising an entity that gives less than two shits about him or his well-being. Talk about misplaced allegiances.
Comments by people who read that story...
| ]Posted by: CMc62480 | Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 02:01 PM
who has two thumbs and likes to start trouble?
this guy.............
|
That guy gets it.
| ]Posted by: Len | Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 02:35 PM
I would write a letter to the dean of your university. Conduct like that is absolutely unacceptable and should easily be grounds for the dismissal of your department head. Mets fans are such cry babies. I can't wait to invade that stadium and piss on it.
|
Oh, absolutely! Fire the department head! Puh-lease.
| ]Posted by: Albert | Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 02:36 PM
I hereby nominate you for Phreedom Phighter of the Year.
Take no guff from those swine.
You are a patriot and a forward thinker.
You will go very far in life, son.
Continue to fight the good fight.
|
Soldiers in Iraq could take lessons on patriotism from Ole Two Thumbs up there.
| ]Posted by: sponge-worthy | Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 03:30 PM
I commend you on the way you handled yourself and definitely support what you did. Job or no job, the way they treated and judged you is tantamount to judging you based on ethnicity. I've seen a lot of opposing teams' fans at Eagles games. They all get harassed to a point, but the ones that act like you did are never asked to leave and are respected as loyal fans.
Your Mets fan coworkers and Mets fan department head should all be ashamed of themselves for their actions. Considering it wasn't an MLB event at all, Citi, the Mets and all Mets fans should be embarrassed.
|
| ]Posted by: Chuck | Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Sounds like you have a valid discrimination lawsuit you can threaten the department with.
|
Discrimination Lawsuits! See, now you know how Nelson Mandela felt being locked up in prison for all those years.
| ]Posted by: will.H | Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 04:17 PM
I was wearing a phillies shirt while shopping for furniture and the guy told me he would give me half off a chair I was looking at if I put on a Mets shirt. You know what I told him,
"Go get the shirt."
|
Exactly.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Apr 02 2009 07:39 AM
|
|
I would guess his bosses were very concerned about making a good impression in the first day at the park, noticed the jacket was not only drawing the wrong kind of attention but the attention was distracting the guy (how is it he can recount each individual slight and still stay focused on doing his job?) and they asked him to take it off in the best interests of all involved.
And Douchebag doesn't have a case for being wronged here. He was made aware of, and accepted, the consequences.
|
metsguyinmichigan
Apr 02 2009 07:51 AM
|
|
If he wore that jacket on that day, he was looking for a confrontation. Unprofessional.
|
G-Fafif
Apr 02 2009 08:13 AM
|
|
Some part of me wants to empathize with the kid, the part that admires his Team First mentality, but honestly, what a douche. You're not there as a fan. You're there as something approximating a professional. Wear the revolting garment to a Mets game you're sitting in the stands for (though in a perfect world, all douches who wear enemy garments would be thrown out of the Mets' park by law; Mets fans in other parks, on the other hand, would roam freely and be treated as sages), not when you're going to work in a job where it's clearly all kinds of bad form. St. John's would be right to tell him to stop being a douche. The Mets shouldn't be bothered one way or the other but as a partisan I'm glad that they are.
I also cheered when some MFY fan had his cap tossed from Mezzanine to Loge in 2006.
What really irks me is on first glance, it looks like he's posing at Citizens Bank.
|
holychicken
Apr 02 2009 08:25 AM
|
|
="metsguyinmichigan":3tc6j8qn]If he wore that jacket on that day, he was looking for a confrontation. Unprofessional.[/quote:3tc6j8qn]
This.
There were a lot of things that shouldn't have happened that day. But it all started with him wearing the jacket when he should have known it was unprofessional and provocative to do so.
|
Edgy DC
Apr 02 2009 08:29 AM
|
|
I do not contest his douchiness --- though he's no more self-absorbed than your typical college student.
What scares me is the thought of the St. John's folk seeing the Mets as a fearsome intolerant corporate bullyboy that must be pre-emptively propitated.
And when you treat folks like that, they often become like that, and it's a slippery slope leading perhaps to the point where Yankee Stadium isn't the only place where the weekend polezei are making people stay in place during "God Bless America" or else.
Douchebags got rights too.
|
Gwreck
Apr 02 2009 08:34 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":3475yfro]What scares me is the thought of the St. John's folk seeing the Mets as a fearsome intolerant corporate bullyboy that must be pre-emptively propitated.
And when you treat folks like that, they often become like that, and it's a slippery slope leading perhaps to the point where Yankee Stadium isn't the only place where the weekend polezei are making people stay in place during "God Bless America" or else.[/quote:3475yfro]
Yeah, I don't see it. Mostly based on that he wasn't a paying customer. Put restrictions on the paying customers and I see a problem.
I can't see the Mets placing a reasonable restriction* on what working staff/credentialed press gets to wear as a problem. Really, I'm not sure that the working media really should be wearing team-logo stuff when covering an event. Seems unprofessional. No cheering in the pressbox and all that.
*and it indeed was reasonable in the matter at issue.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 08:48 AM
|
|
The student had a right to want a confrontation, so long as it's the legal kind that is to be reasonably expected in a stadium where fans show up to root for opposing teams, and not a physical confrontation or unreasonably abusive vocal one; otherwise the Mets could rightfully eject the student based upon his unruly behavior rather than on his choice of wardrobe.
I have no problem if it turned out that the student was ejected and that St. John's called all the shots. I'm pretty sure that a private university does have the right to institute dress codes for their students. This particular student was also at Citi Field in some sort of employment capacity as well, even if he wasn't being compensated for his assignment -- this also gives St. John's the right to determine what the student ought to have worn.
But I think it was wrong if the Mets decided to remove the student. What if the kid wore a KC Royal jersey? Or a Seattle Pilot throwback? Are Dodger unis permitted? A Manny Ramirez jersey? Mike Scioscia throwback? Jackie Robinson jersey?
|
Edgy DC
Apr 02 2009 08:52 AM
|
|
But --- and this comes from his account which you certainly don't have to take a face value --- does St. John's have the right to arbitrarily "institute dress codes" after the fact when they've seen what colors he's sporting?
Understand, I think he deserves a shit sandwich for claiming that he offered to compromise by wearing the Johnny's jacket under his uniform.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 09:02 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 02 2009 09:04 AM
|
|
| ="Edgy DC"]But --- and this comes from his account which you certainly don't have to take a face value --- does St. John's have the right to arbitrarily "institute dress codes" after the fact when they've seen what colors he's sporting? |
I would guess "yes". St. John's has so much leeway here, they could do almost anything. They could, for example, justify their actions on grounds that the Phillie jacket might've attracted enough attention from Met fans so as to prevent the student from being able to properly perform his duties. This would be the function over form rationale.
But I think that whether or not the kid was an asshole is irrelevant here. He has the right to be an asshole so long as he doesn't interfere with anybody else's ability to enjoy the game.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Apr 02 2009 09:02 AM
|
|
I just think everyone involved was concerned that the headlines from the first game ever at the park read BEAUTIFUL PARK OPENS and not DOUCHE BEATEN TO DEATH
The backdrop, I think, is a sad commentary on the state of fan behavior in general (as the Sean Green Number Controversy is).
|
G-Fafif
Apr 02 2009 09:04 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":eo1f1f0g]Douchebags got rights too.[/quote:eo1f1f0g]
This rule of law is why it's technically considered a crime to beat MFY fans to bloody pulps.
Technically.
|
Fman99
Apr 02 2009 09:05 AM
|
|
Who's got two thumbs and smells like vinegar and water?
This guy!
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 09:08 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 02 2009 09:31 AM
|
|
It cuts both ways. Would anyone here like it if they were ejected from Citizens Bank Park for wearing a Met cap but otherwise behaving like the perfect model citizen bank?
|
Gwreck
Apr 02 2009 09:11 AM
|
|
Hell no, but I'm guessing that the conditions on the back of the ticket permit them to do so (assuming they refund the purchase price of the ticket).
This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.
|
G-Fafif
Apr 02 2009 09:11 AM
|
|
What I get from that picture is the guy really likes Pepsi.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 09:22 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 02 2009 09:23 AM
|
|
="Gwreck":bmmnxytl]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:bmmnxytl]
Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?
|
TransMonk
Apr 02 2009 09:22 AM
|
|
The similarities between the huge Pepsi "P" and the Phillies "P" is a bit disturbing.
|
metsguyinmichigan
Apr 02 2009 09:23 AM
|
|
Just noticed the writing on the tarp. What the heck is that? I'm assuming it's a giant ad. What does it say?
|
Edgy DC
Apr 02 2009 09:23 AM
|
|
That does it. I'm burning that building down.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 09:24 AM
|
|
The stadium does remind me of Citizens Bank, in that photograph.
|
G-Fafif
Apr 02 2009 09:35 AM
|
|
="metsguyinmichigan":1clc7wsc]Just noticed the writing on the tarp. What the heck is that? I'm assuming it's a giant ad. What does it say?[/quote:1clc7wsc]
Sports SPDR or something to that effect. They're the sponsor of Mets rain delays.
No, I'm not kidding.
|
Gwreck
Apr 02 2009 09:49 AM
|
|
="batmagadanleadoff":kzvkayl1]="Gwreck":kzvkayl1]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:kzvkayl1]
Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:kzvkayl1]
I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave.
|
Nymr83
Apr 02 2009 09:56 AM
|
|
="Gwreck":2wlwkjea]="batmagadanleadoff":2wlwkjea]="Gwreck":2wlwkjea]This guy wasn't a paying customer, accordingly the rules are different.[/quote:2wlwkjea]
Are they? If the student was also considered to be a Met employee at that moment, then I could see the justification. But what about my Roger Angell hypothetical? And what about the complimentary guest tickets that the visiting team is allotted for each game? Does this mean that Brad Lidge's kid can't wear a Phillie cap at Citi Field?[/quote:2wlwkjea]
I really think the rules *are* different for the media. If Roger Angell showed up wearing a Phillies hat in the pressbox, I'd be fine with the Mets asking him to remove the hat or leave.[/quote:2wlwkjea]
as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 02 2009 10:00 AM
|
|
="Nymr83":f5xc7li3]as would i. but lets be clear that theres still no evidence that the METS told or asked this kid to do anything. so far it looks like it was all someone from st johns[/quote:f5xc7li3]
Understood. I assume that we're all posting hypothetically -- under the premise that we don't know for sure if and why the student was ejected.
By the way, I dislike the idea that the Mets could impose a dress code in the press box, although they have the right to, if that's their choice. Otherwise, the slope really has slipped; does this mean that the Phillies broadcasters (e.g. Harry Kalas) can't wear Phillie gear?
|
Edgy DC
Apr 02 2009 10:08 AM
|
|
You know, the Warriors just wanted to walk peacefully through the Orphans' territory, but the Orphans insisted they remove their colors. And we know how that turned out.
|
Centerfield
Apr 02 2009 10:43 AM
|
|
Since we're all up on a pedestal in this thread:
The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category. I wouldn't want to see the Mets make any such limitations in the press box or in the stands. The obvious exception is employees of the organization, who should wear whatever the fuck the Mets tell them to wear.
As such, St. John's, or any other employer, be it the Philly newspapers or otherwise, has every right, and should, if they feel it is necessary, to restrict the apparel of any of their employees during company time. That means if your boss tells you to take off the Phillies jacket, take off the Phillies jacket. If your boss gives you a jacket to wear, put the damn thing on.
Turning our attention to loser-Fonzie-wannabe-Philly-Fan...he was not removed from CitiField for his apparel. He was given a choice to follow orders, or quit, from his boss. He chose to quit. The only reason he had to leave was because his job was his basis for being at the game. If he had then gone outside and bought a ticket, he could have come back inside and worn his Phillies jacket and held up a sign that said "St. John's = Big Brother" if he so chose. He did not. So fuck him.
|
Rockin' Doc
Apr 02 2009 11:14 AM
|
|
CF - <i>"The Mets should not limit any clothing, accessories etc. unless it is vulgar, obscene, or distasteful in some way. Other teams' apparel obviously does not fit into this category...."</i>
I don't know CF, I find a Yankee cap to be rather distasteful.
|
metsguyinmichigan
Apr 02 2009 11:21 AM
|
|
No employer or team should prevent him from wearing the jacket, but that doesn't mean he should wear it.
It's like cheering in the press box. If I stood in there cheering for the Mets, no one would say, "Hey, we're not supposed to cheer up here."
But it would be like the giant douchebag signal shining brightly in the Gothom City sky. There would be plenty of eye-rolling and snide remarks, because sportswriters like the "holier than thou" thing.
Suprisingly, the opposite of cheer-leading is openly accepted. You could sit there all day saying "Delgado is a bum" and the writers would likely praise your for your knowledge.
The exception is questioning St. Derek's range or intangibles. That will get you booted.
|
LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 02 2009 11:24 AM
|
|
It doesn't seem plausible that Mets personnel would have gotten so upset about this when at least several dozen folks in Yank gear-- and probably a handful more in Phil-analia-- were also milling about (having seen a bunch of these vinegary fellows in fan photos).
It seems a likelier story that department-head guy was a little antsy about St. John's staff provoking adverse reactions-- even if mild-- on a high-visibility day in a facility that wasn't theirs, and did a bad job of standing his ground when pressed by a smartass ("I'll wear it under the Phils jacket-- what's the problem? No, I haven't eaten shit today-- why do you ask?").
| ="batmagadanleadoff"]Oh ... and by the way ... shouldn't the thread title be A Matter of Ph**king Principle? |
Done and done. (Had been thinking of the Utley quote.)
|
metirish
Apr 02 2009 12:40 PM
|
|
How do we explain this to the Iraqis ?
|
Number 6
Apr 02 2009 09:08 PM
|
|
To me, there are two things we're talking about here. One is the right of this guy's employer, or the Mets, to dictate what he can and can't wear, and the phan's responsibility to comply. I think CF covered this well; they have a right to tell the guy to take his jacket off. He disagreed, and maybe lost some of the high ground with the passive-aggressive "under the jacket" dickishness, but ultimately he took a stand, no matter how dubious it was, and accepted the consequences. Fine.
To me, the more important point is less the right of his employer/the Mets to dictate his dress, but whether they should exercise that right. Let's assume, for the moment, that the order did come from the Mets and not St. John's, and that the phan was as otherwise respectful as he makes himself out to be. Is there anyone who believes that, while retaining the right to do so, the Mets should tell him to take the jacket off? Are Met fans really so childish that a Phillies jacket is an unbearable affront? Would we be OK with the Mets thinking we are?
Personally, it really chafes me when I see people wearing Yankees, Braves or Phillies gear to games when that team isn't in the park. And while I don't think it's appropriate for the Mets or anyone else to restrict their right to wear that gear, I am very comfortable with my personal right to judge them. This kid's a dick, but let him broadcast that fact in peace.
|
Nymr83
Apr 03 2009 06:16 AM
|
|
No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Apr 03 2009 06:52 AM
|
|
| ="Nymr83"]No, I don't think the Mets should exercise that right with regard to an employee of a college baseball team playing at their stadium. but i also dont think they did exercise that right. |
Me neither. This matter was probably purely between the student and the university. I'd also bet that the student wasn't being entirely objective when he posted his account, and probably shaded the story somewhat so as to favor him. I don't think that the Mets ever enforced any kind of dress code at Shea concerning opposing teams gear -- in the press box or anywhere else. I assume that nothing will change at Citi Field.
|
Ashie62
Apr 03 2009 09:45 AM
|
|
Elaine..You cannot wear the Oriloles hat in mr. Steinbrenner's box!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
