Watch “Jungle Bird Man” run on the field at Nats park, get roughed up by security

117 Comments

At the Mets-Nats game on Friday night an environmental activist named Andrew Dudley, who goes by the name Jungle Bird Man, ran onto the field at Nats park, ran the bases, pantomimed a home run and then was promptly taken down and arrested. You can read his about his whole back story and his motivations at the Washington Post today.

None of that interests me all that much. I mean, go environment, but I doubt Jungle Bird Man is going to further the cause all that much by trespassing and videobombing sporting events. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Maybe Jungle Bird Man is the key to a verdant future. I guess we’ll see.

What does interest me is the takedown by security. Come for the fans demanding that he be tased, stay for the crazy-excessive force used by security against a guy who had his hands out in a “cuff me” motion representing complete surrender to authority:

Based on past comment threads around here, I’m sure many of you will cite Tom Gamboa, Monica Seles, 9/11 and the movies “Experiment in Terror” and “The Last Boy Scout” and claim that one can never be too careful. But I’m sorry, if security can’t appreciate that this guy is not a threat and can’t handle that guy without a choke-slam, something is pretty darn wrong.

Can anyone point to a moment where the guy threatened anyone on the field? Any point where he appeared to be dangerous or aggressive? Any point where he appeared to pose a risk to players, fans or security personnel? If you can identify it please let me know. If you can’t, and if you still think it was cool for the guy to be slammed to ground like that, you’re saying that all trespassing incidents justify the use of violent force.

Tony Clark: among players, the universal DH “is gaining momentum”

Getty Images
13 Comments

Major League Baseball Players Association executive director Tony Clark met the press late this morning and covered a wide array of topics.

One of them: free agency, which he referred to as being “under attack” based on the slow market for free agents last offseason.

“What the players saw last offseason was that their free-agent rights were under attack on what has been the bedrock of our system,” Clark said. He added that they “have some very difficult decisions to make.” Presumably in the form of grievances and, down the road, a negotiating strategy that seeks to claw back some of the many concessions the union has given owners in the past few Collective Bargaining Agreements. CBAs, it’s worth noting, that Clark negotiated. We’ve covered that territory in detail in the past.

Of more immediate interest was Clark’s comment that the idea of a universal designated hitter is, among players, “gaining momentum.” Clark says “players are talking about it more than they have in the past.” We’ve talked a lot about that as well.

Given that hating or loving the DH is the closest thing baseball has to a religion, no one’s mind is going to be changed by any of this, but I think, practically speaking, it’s inevitable that the National League will have the DH and I think it happens relatively soon. Perhaps in the next five years. The opposition to it at this point is solely subjective and based on tradition. People like pitchers batting and they like double switches and they like the leagues being different because they, well, like it. If the system were being set up today, however, they’d never have it this way and I think even the DH-haters know that well. That doesn’t mean that you can’t dislike a universal DH, but it does mean that you can’t expect the people who run the game to cater to that preference when it makes little sense for them to do it for their own purposes.

Anyway: enjoy convincing each other in the comments about how the side of that argument you dislike is wrong.