had 2,000 more hits, at 4,256, and isn’t in the Hall of Fame. I thought that Bud Selig was going to look at his case around 5 years ago, but still, no word? When is enough, enough? It’s time to re-enstate Pete back into baseball and make him elibilble for the Hall of Fame. Even if he bet on baseball after he played, as a Manager, that still doesn’t take away from all of those hits he had as a player. He should’ve been a first ballot Hall of Famer. This is just ridiculous. It’s not like he cheated while he played. He didn’t take roids or anything. He had a gambling problem and bet while he was a manager, so what? And if it was a big deal, I think he’s paid for his sins by now. It’s been like 23 years. I think that’s long enough. Please let Pete in before he dies. What do you think?

Born: April 14, 1941 (1941-04-14) (age 70)
Cincinnati, Ohio
Batted: Switch Threw: Right
MLB debut
April 8, 1963 for the Cincinnati Reds
Last MLB appearance
August 17, 1986 for the Cincinnati Reds
Career statistics
Batting average .303
Hits 4,256
Home runs 160
Runs batted in 1,314
Teams
As player

Cincinnati Reds (1963–1978)
Philadelphia Phillies (1979–1983)
Montreal Expos (1984)
Cincinnati Reds (1984–1986)
As manager

Cincinnati Reds (1984–1989)

Career highlights and awards
3× World Series champion (1975, 1976, 1980)
1973 NL MVP
1975 World Series MVP
3× National League Batting Champion (1968, 1969, 1973
17× All-Star (1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985)
2× Gold Glove Award winner (1969, 1970)
Silver Slugger Award winner (1981)
1963 NL Rookie of the Year
1968 Hutch Award
1969 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award
1976 Roberto Clemente Award
Major League Baseball All-Century Team
Holds numerous other records and achievements
MLB Records

4,256 career hits
3,562 career games played
14,053 career at-bats
you’re comparing gambling to what OJ did (Murder). Major FAIL

Pete Rose will not be inducted into the HOF as long as he lives. They will never give him the satisfaction of accepting the honor and giving a speech.

One rule. There is just ONE rule major leaguers have to follow. Just one. And that idiot couldn’t do it. He doesn’t deserve the Hall, pure and simple. He thought he was bigger than the game and he wasn’t. By your logic, if OJ had been found guilty of murder they should have released him anyway, because he had such a good record. Rose should be considered in about 450 years. And then rejected.

i 100% agree. Bud was just on the losing side of those bets i bet you. That why hes mad lol

Gambling in uniform is gambling in uniform. You can try to make all the excuses for it you want, but it’s the one rule you cannot break. And he broke it. Banned for life is the punishment. Banned for life he stays. And deservedly so.

Pete Rose DID use PED’s. He used illegal drugs to increase his performance, illegal amphetamines. Steroids are not the only PED’s that have been used in baseball. Amphetamines are illegal drugs used to increase performance. They are now banned every bit as much as steroids just not talked about as much. Pete Rose also bet on baseball. Pete Rose will never be in the HOF and never should be. When you start letting guys like Pete Rose in MLB becomes the WWE with fixed results. MLB can not allow players or managers to bet on the game or things like the Black Sox world series will become common place.

Peter Edward Rose SHOULD have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. But he chose to do the only thing that would carry a PERMANENT banishment from the game. So the reason Peter Edward Rose is not in the Hall of Fame is Peter Edward Rose. He made is own bed. Let him lay in it.

THis is what I think.
It’s nice to see your compassion for Mr. Rose.
I’m sure he would appreciate your thoughts.
Yes, he should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer.
Yes, he had a gambling problem and bet while he was a manager.
You think he’s paid for his sins by now.
It’s been like 23 years.
You think that’s long enough.
You say let him in before he dies.

Not sure how OJ gets into a rationale discussion on the subject of Rose.

Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball, which disqualifies him from even being on the HOF ballot.
It’s too bad Rose has all the playing records but whose character couldn’t prevent him from gambling on games. You may recall he also stonewalled the investigation. You also recall Rose cheated on his income taxes and is a convicted felon for tax evasion – serving time in a Federal Penitentiary.

Let him in before he dies.
You’re comparing someone who broke a Cardinal Rule in baseball to what it took for Ron Santo to finally get into the Hall literally after he died. Now THAT was a very Major FAIL.

Now let me start off by saying that there are always rules people need to follow, and it’s inexcusable to intentionally disobey those rules.

But the Hall of Fame is designed to recognize the greatest ball-players of all time, and Rose is clearly one of the best. So they’re basically shunning all of his great accomplishments because he simply broke a rule. I don’t care what punishment they give for disobeying the so-called “Cardinal Rule”, but don’t completely ignore his legendary career. The greatest players of all time need to be recognized.

On the other side, I do realize what gambling can do to baseball. I wouldn’t want to be a fan of a sport where I have to wonder if the game was rigged when something out of the ordinary happens. So for everyone who breaks the gambling rule, I think it’s correct to punish them to a fairly severe degree, but I don’t understand the point in ignoring his accomplishments. Come on now.

Hey, why don’t you argue for the reinstatement of Buck Weaver first? We KNOW he didn’t bet on games. He’s actually INNOCENT.
He needs to be reinstated before Rose.

“When is enough, enough?” is better asked of the pro-Rose apologists and groupies. How many decades before they surrender this futile fight? Or, at the very least, TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT than just crabbing away from their keyboards — a method which, after 22 years, I think we can proclaim a proven failure for effecting material change to Rose’s status.

Rose’s on-field performance is not the reason he is not in the Hall. Such an argument is nonsensical, and really not worth pursuing. Worth noting, however, that neither was his playing career sufficient grace for ignoring the special damning circumstances he brought upon himself which DO obviate his Hall eligibility. It works both ways.

Anyone who thinks Rose’s gambling transgressions happened only after he took his last at-bat* is woefully naive. Dowd never substantiated the claims and didn’t need to, but there is evidence that Rose bet during his last few playing seasons, and sketchier indications that his gambling stretched WAY back into his playing career.

Rose could, possibly, EARN a second chance. It never is going to be handed to him. Fans whining about his fate (that he wrought with his own acts, and agreed to by his own signature) really are not helping the cause.

ps. Rose’s sentence is “permanent ineligibility”. When “permanent” expires, he’ll have served his time. We’re not there yet.

———-
* He struck out against San Diego’s Goose Gossage, ending the bottom of the eighth (while pinch-hitting for the pitcher) in a 9-5 loss to the Padres, 17-August-1986.

chances were given to Daryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Steve Howe, etc, for violating drug policies. The answer is…… MANY. How come Pete Rose hasn’t been given a second chance? It’s been 23 years since he was banned for life by Commissioner Giamatti, who died a few months later. Bud Selig could overturn this. How come he doesn’t? It seems silly to not have Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, with his 4,256 career hits. The reason why gambling became a major MLB sin, is because of the rampant gambling that was going on in the early part of the 20th century, with the Black Sox scandal, etc. It’s not like Pete took money from a bookie and threw a game, while he was a player. Pete liked to gamble, and was betting when he was a manager, not a player. Regardless, those bets had nothing to do with the great career he had, and the 4,256 hits he put up as a player. He wasn’t a cheater, he wasn’t a roider. This is America, the land of second, third and forth chances. So, how come Pete hasn’t gotten one?

Born: April 14, 1941 (1941-04-14) (age 70)
Cincinnati, Ohio
Batted: Switch Threw: Right
MLB debut
April 8, 1963 for the Cincinnati Reds
Last MLB appearance
August 17, 1986 for the Cincinnati Reds
Career statistics
Batting average .303
Hits 4,256
Home runs 160
Runs batted in 1,314
Teams
As player

Cincinnati Reds (1963–1978)
Philadelphia Phillies (1979–1983)
Montreal Expos (1984)
Cincinnati Reds (1984–1986)
As manager

Cincinnati Reds (1984–1989)

Career highlights and awards
3× World Series champion (1975, 1976, 1980)
1973 NL MVP
1975 World Series MVP
3× National League Batting Champion (1968, 1969, 1973
17× All-Star (1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985)
2× Gold Glove Award winner (1969, 1970)
Silver Slugger Award winner (1981)
1963 NL Rookie of the Year
1968 Hutch Award
1969 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award
1976 Roberto Clemente Award
Major League Baseball All-Century Team
Holds numerous other records and achievements
MLB Records

4,256 career hits
3,562 career games played
14,053 career at-bats
Texhabs, he never bet against the Reds. Show me the proof that he did that? Give me a link. You can’t, because that never happened.

• Because, he’s a cheater and a traitor.Ok ..That’s why.
• Pete Rose lied for 18 years before he finally told the truth. Baseball holds grudges. Shoeless Joe Jackson has been waiting to get into The Baseball Hall of Fame for 9 Decades. Baseball hasn’t forgiven him for The Black Sox Scandal. Pete Rose Gambled on his own Sport, which every Athlete knows is something that you do not do.
• He bet against his own team while serving as player-manager. If you choose
  to ignore that it’s your decision, but I for one find Pete’s actions unforgiveable.
• Quick answer. The players you mentioned did not break Rule 21. Rose did.
• It’s nice to see your compassion for Mr. Rose.
  I’m sure he would appreciate your thoughts.
  Yes, he should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer.
  Yes, he had a gambling problem and bet while he was a manager.
  You think he’s paid for his sins by now.
  It’s been like 23 years.
  You think that’s long enough.
  You say let him in before he dies.

  Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball, which disqualifies him from even being on the HOF ballot.
  It’s too bad Rose has all the playing records but whose character couldn’t prevent him from gambling on games. You may recall he also stonewalled the investigation. You also recall Rose cheated on his income taxes and is a convicted felon for tax evasion – serving time in a Federal Penitentiary.

• The man pulled down his pants and crapped all over baseball. As a manager — the person who is in the best position to influence the outcome of the game — and in all likelihood as a player, too, he broke the one and only rule that is posted in every single locker room in pro ball. He’s a pig who lied about it and only told the truth when he perceived that doing so might give him a chance to be reinstated. Timothy McVeigh should have been let loose? Nah. Rose is done. For all of history, just as it should be.
• Drug abuse is a different matter than internal gambling, and baseball addresses it in a different manner.

  Rose is not going to be handed a second chance. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves, and more vocal denialists are trying to delude others (though mainly they just annoy others). They would be well-advised to stop doing this.

  Why has not Rose tried to EARN a second chance? Commit to major overhauls in his personal lifestyle, get the hell out of Las Vegas (it just doesn’t look good, an addicted gambler hanging out there), and start down the road of rehabilitation and the 12-step GA program. This doesn’t stand a very good chance at all of earning Rose reinstatement, but it’s the only chance he’s got, and it only works while he’s still drawing breath.

  Ask and try to answer that question instead: why has not Rose tried to EARN a second chance?

  It’s not immediately germane, but recall that Rose added 14 years of serial lying about his culpability and guilt after he was expelled. That doesn’t much help someone trying (theoretically, anyway) to get back in on good standing, when his biggest asset must needs be the quality of his character.

  Rose did apply for reinstatement in 1997, but Kommissar Selig has never bothered ruling on the request, is under no mandate to rule on it, and by now it is quite obvious he never is going to rule on it.

• William B Cox, owner of the Philadelphia Phillies in the 1940s, bet on his teams. To WIN.
  And he was banned in 1943. He has yet to be reinstated.
  Pete Rose VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED a permanent place on baseball’s ineligible list. Pete Rose said, ‘OK, I’ll be permanently banned from baseball, I’ll sign the thing.’
  John Dowd, of the Dowd Report, has stated that he believes, but cannot prove, the Rose DID bet against the Reds.
  Rose has NEVER apologized for betting on baseball, at least in any way that could be considered sincere.
  Rose can apply for reinstatement, every single year, but he has only tried four times.

  EDIT- Has Pete Rose ever even ‘asked’ for a second chance? Has he sent the Commissioner a letter asking, ‘What, if anything, can I do to redeem myself and get reinstated?’ How about you get Pete Rose to hold a press conference stating ‘I am sorry and do not deserve to be reinstated, but if MLB would give me a second chance, just tell me what I must do, and I will do it 100 times over!’
  Then it’ll start looking like he gives a damn.

• I agree, I always thought he got a raw deal. I never want to see MLB standards lower themselves to NFL standards, I hate seeing criminals being treated like heroes. But I don’t think Pete Rose should be kept from the HOF since he did earn it.
  I feel like they just wanted to make an example of him to discourage it, that’s why such a severe penalty.

rugby pros vs NFL players- could they switch, and how would a match-up look?
im a fan of both sports.
first of all, the people arguing over which is "tougher" and that the other sport is "soft" are idiotic..i can assure you both are very physically demanding, very rough, very brutal, and very challenging.
im american, my main sport is definitely football. im a starting WR for the florida high school 6A state champions, but ive always messed around with rugby.
last year i visited friends in new zealand who play nationally organized rugby junior league [we were all about 16] and played a full game against 2 actual teams [obviously an unofficial game]

so i do know what im talking about.

anyway, im asking a few things:
1. how would a top rugby pro do in the NFL and vice versa; how would they do switched?
2. if the all blacks [ elite world rugby team] played green bay packers in a game of rugby AND football, which side would do better in the other sport?

first for players, i think there are definitely a few who could switch relatively quickly and plausibly make the active roster, and a few who would even do well as starters. for example, jonah lomu was a rugby player. hes about 6’4.5, 275 pounds with VERY little fat [looks like a WR] and ran an estimated 4.5 40…now i bet he could make a damn decent MLB at the NFL level after a little training. likewise, im sure bo jackson could succeed in any sport where he picks up a ball and runs past defenders! both top NFLers and rugbyers are big, strong, and fast. if you’re 250 pounds and can run 100m in under 11 sec, you’re going to be good i na physical game like football/rugby.

the players would have an advantage over non-players of identical size/speed in that they do have some experience playing a somewhat similar game. that being said, rugby and footbal are more different than you think. the rules and gameplay arent really that parallel- they’re two very distinct sports. im 6’3, 225 pounds, run a 4.39 laser 40 [fastest in state] and have full scholarship offers from UF, alabama, UM, georgia and nebraska. so im pretty good. but when i played that rugby game in new zealand, i was the worst guy on the field, and by no means overpowered anyone. and trust me, rugby tackles can be REALLY hard! following the rules was hard enough, and even when i figured it out, i wasnt very good. however, i was able to score using my speed/catching…i was the fastest by a mile, they were amazed at my speed.

here are some problems each team might face:
FOOTBALL players problems playing rugby:
-endurance: stanima would be a serious problem for NFL guys, rugby players are unquestionably superior in stamina.
- skill: overall i must admit rugby takes a little bit more learned skill and ability
- versatility: in rugby, players must serve more roles and be able to adjust far more quickly. everyone WILL touch the bill multiple times in the game. NFL
RUGBY players problems playing football:
- hits: sorry rugbyers, football hits ARE harder. those pads are necessary- being really tough isnt enough, you WILL be injured if you’re hit football style without pads. rugby tackles arent soft either, but they’d be in for a rude awakening.
-specialization: NFLers are REAALLLY good at the position they play because its all they play. having a balanced team lile rugby wouldnt work, you’d need to be individually equal to NFLs in specific positions
-speed: yes, football pauses alot, but pace of gameplay is MUCH faster…lightning speed. rugby players havent seen gameplay that fast. NFL players are definitely faster to.
-size/strength: gotta give NFL slight edge in size strength, especially linemen.

so lets say the green bay packers and all blacks played a game of rugby, and a game of football. obviously each would win their own sport, but who would do better in the "other" sport?

im know im biased, but i gotta go with NFL doing the better job. i dont see rugby defense having any clue how to stop 30 yard passes to WR, and NFL would score at will. rugby offense playing football might score with runs short passes, but adjusting would be too difficult.
in the rugby game, NFL would lose, but i think everyone in a while a speedy WR or RB could run one in. again, put a ball in bo jacksons hand and he’ll make magic. the fast NFL defense could give the rugby offense more trouble then they’d expect

Really? Do you see honestly see any NFL player having the slightest chance of going for the full eighty minutes? Without a breather after every tackle and without endless substitutions? These guys have spent a lifetime training for a sport played in 5 second bursts, and they are great for those five seconds. But cardio is not exactly high on their training priorities list.

And do you really see any NFL runner coping with an offense where there is no blocking and offloading during the tackle is utterly critical to run a successful offense. Bo Jackson might be great — until he went down. Then it would be a turnover every time as he would have absolutely no offloading skills.

The fact of the matter is that both sports are so completely different — and take a lifetime of training to compete at an elite level — that each team would be utterly hopeless at the other sport. Forget the All-Blacks. Any fourth-level English semi-pro club would crush the Packers in a rugby match. As would any Division III NCAA college team crush the All-Blacks at American football should they find themselves on a gridiron pitch.

So my question is why compare rugby and gridiron? You might as well choose basketball and ice hockey. It makes as much sense.

NFL players by majority are; faster (guys running 4.1 over forty on every team), stronger (hundreds of players benching 750lbs and squatting 800lbs) and bigger (linebackers average 6’4 250lbs, lineman 6’6 350lbs) and most of the NFL is comprised of African Americans who are naturally & genetically gifted athletes who have dominated all physical sports from the time they were given permission to compete in white man sports!

The only thing Rugby players trump NFL players in is overall endurance & stamina. Rugby is played at 75% at a non-stop pace, but no-one is ever going 100%. NFL is played at 100% from play to play utilising fast twitch muscle fibers. NFL football is way more high impact, high collision than Rugby and it would take Rugby players a long time to adjust to getting hit that hard. It would also be hard for NFL players to adjust to non-stop football. I think NFL players are in general better all-round athletes and are the best money can buy (the fact that 1 NFL team is worth more than several pro Rugby teams certainly gives the NFL an advantage in scouting and buying anyone in the world they think could cut it) bottom line is it could be done but with great difficulty.

Comparing the sports is ludicrous, one is all about endurance and all round skill the other is all about speed and individual skill base ie one is big another fast etc

That said NFL players would struggle with the absolute lack of tackling technique. With their lead with the head technique and dive at the knees in their “more physical” less brains way of bringing an opponent down they would get knocked out within two minutes.
Rugby players would struggle with a lack of size in general although if they did not have to worry about cardio and just weights or speed i am sure they would adjust.

But the real question is why do NFL fans have to come on to a rugby site to justify their supposed dominance….insecure much.

That’s a BIG question!

I have played rugby all my life, and American football for about 7 years, so I too have a decent background to answer this question.

Quite simply, the level of specialisation and training a player needs to put in to play at either NFL or international rugby level is so great that neither could really switch with any degree of success.

The only players who seem able to switch codes are the AFL players who go into the NFL as punters, and then only because that one skill is transferable (to some degree).

Given the time and inclination, I am sure some players could transfer, but I don’t think it would be worth it in the long run – as they would be relative rookies going up against guys who had played the game since they were children. You would be looking at the guys who are superb athletes to start with, guys like Sonny Bill Williams, Pierre Spies, David Pocock, Adrian Peterson, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews (yeah I’m a Packers fan, whatever!).

Would it be worth unlearning a lifetime worth of lessons to go from being a star in one sport to merely competent in another? I doubt many players would think so – and yet who knows?

im a fan of both sports.
first of all, the people arguing over which is "tougher" and that the other sport is "soft" are idiotic..i can assure you both are very physically demanding, very rough, very brutal, and very challenging.
im american, my main sport is definitely football. im a starting WR for the florida high school 6A state champions, but ive always messed around with rugby.
last year i visited friends in new zealand who play nationally organized rugby junior league [we were all about 16] and played a full game against 2 actual teams [obviously an unofficial game]

so i do know what im talking about.

anyway, im asking a few things:
1. how would a top rugby pro do in the NFL and vice versa; how would they do switched?
2. if the all blacks [ elite world rugby team] played green bay packers in a game of rugby AND football, which side would do better in the other sport?

first for players, i think there are definitely a few who could switch relatively quickly and plausibly make the active roster, and a few who would even do well as starters. for example, jonah lomu was a rugby player. hes about 6’4.5, 275 pounds with VERY little fat [looks like a WR] and ran an estimated 4.5 40…now i bet he could make a damn decent MLB at the NFL level after a little training. likewise, im sure bo jackson could succeed in any sport where he picks up a ball and runs past defenders! both top NFLers and rugbyers are big, strong, and fast. if you’re 250 pounds and can run 100m in under 11 sec, you’re going to be good i na physical game like football/rugby.

the players would have an advantage over non-players of identical size/speed in that they do have some experience playing a somewhat similar game. that being said, rugby and footbal are more different than you think. the rules and gameplay arent really that parallel- they’re two very distinct sports. im 6’3, 225 pounds, run a 4.39 laser 40 [fastest in state] and have full scholarship offers from UF, alabama, UM, georgia and nebraska. so im pretty good. but when i played that rugby game in new zealand, i was the worst guy on the field, and by no means overpowered anyone. and trust me, rugby tackles can be REALLY hard! following the rules was hard enough, and even when i figured it out, i wasnt very good. however, i was able to score using my speed/catching…i was the fastest by a mile, they were amazed at my speed.

here are some problems each team might face:
FOOTBALL players problems playing rugby:
-endurance: stanima would be a serious problem for NFL guys, rugby players are unquestionably superior in stamina.
- skill: overall i must admit rugby takes a little bit more learned skill and ability
- versatility: in rugby, players must serve more roles and be able to adjust far more quickly. everyone WILL touch the bill multiple times in the game. NFL
RUGBY players problems playing football:
- hits: sorry rugbyers, football hits ARE harder. those pads are necessary- being really tough isnt enough, you WILL be injured if you’re hit football style without pads. rugby tackles arent soft either, but they’d be in for a rude awakening.
-specialization: NFLers are REAALLLY good at the position they play because its all they play. having a balanced team lile rugby wouldnt work, you’d need to be individually equal to NFLs in specific positions
-speed: yes, football pauses alot, but pace of gameplay is MUCH faster…lightning speed. rugby players havent seen gameplay that fast. NFL players are definitely faster to.
-size/strength: gotta give NFL slight edge in size strength, especially linemen.

so lets say the green bay packers and all blacks played a game of rugby, and a game of football. obviously each would win their own sport, but who would do better in the "other" sport?

im know im biased, but i gotta go with NFL doing the better job. i dont see rugby defense having any clue how to stop 30 yard passes to WR, and NFL would score at will. rugby offense playing football might score with runs short passes, but adjusting would be too difficult.
in the rugby game, NFL would lose, but i think everyone in a while a speedy WR or RB could run one in. again, put a ball in bo jacksons hand and he’ll make magic. the fast NFL defense could give the rugby offense more trouble then they’d expect

No one will read all that!!!

You wrote a book!!! Too much to read for two points…

LOL! Someone’s really impressed with himself.

I bet you were a starting WR at a 6A Florida high school. LMAO!

The Kiwis may have been amazedwith your speed but I’m amazed at your bull shít and delusional super inflated ego, You never played football or a pick up Rugby game in New Zealand.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqFsytnQqjdhmzPhJ1.GJoXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20111129205130AAslsYq

Poser. Liar. Phony.

I think MLB has too many games to begin with. I bet not everyone watches all 162 games that thier favorite team plays. I think it should be at like 120 games that way playoffs can start in September and NFL fans (assuming they also watch Baseball) won’t miss too many regular season games. I also believe this will keep MLB fans more involved from day 1 because it will feel like every game counts.

• No. MLB won’t do that. Going from a 154 game season to 162 in 1961 created a lot of problems with single season records – Maris vs. Ruth. Reducing to 120 would be unthinkable.

  MLB has no interest in coordinating schedules for NFL fans – who was here first?

  Very few fans watch 100% of their teams games. Going down to 120 wouldn’t change that.

  Every game counts now – whether it’s played in April or Sept..

• Just because you think they have too many games, doesn’t mean everybody does. And I did watch or listen to, live, at least part of each of the 162 regular season games the Yankees played. Afternoon games while I’m at work, I have a mini AM/FM radio with headphones that I listen to the game.

  And less games means less revenue for the league, so that alone will stop any consideration of shortening the season.