And yet, this thread exists because the supposed historian and expert on the "rules" is telling Sano he wasn't being "appropriate enough". You know, part of the reason we write down rules is to eliminate ambiguity. It helps stem the tide of people putting their own spin on "justice". This instance is one of many that happen every year in baseball - like a guy being thrown at for stealing a base up 3-1 in the seventh, or bunting against the shift, or pumping his fist too many times on the way around the bases - where it becomes clear the unwritten rules really aren't all that clear at all. At what point do we accept that there is no rational grounding to having these rules? That not only is there no proof that they work at what we say they work at, but that we can prove the exact opposite? That they both lead to nonsense and stupidity themselves and that there are tens of thousands of baseball games played every year that don't adhere to this code and somehow still get completed without an orgy of lawless violence? Why must we have them if it's so plain we don't?