How is it screwing if it was 1) agreed to in advance 2) decided by an arbitration panel and 3) based on the increased viewership that the Nationals are bringing to the network?

Orioles signed the deal that included a reset and arbitration for rights fees. They should live up to that.

If by "running his lawfirm" you mean "screwing the Nationals out of millions in TV revenue" then yes.

Prepare for anything decent the Nats do to be shit on because they've disappointed in the post-season in....oh, nevermind

Jesus Christ. Bryce Harper cussed at an umpire and we are litigating Donald Trump's homophobia. Fuck off, all of you. November can't come soon enough.

If you're hurting for work, have you considered becoming "black man that loudly supports Trump?" Get a confederate flag heritage not hate shirt and you'll be on tv for the next year straight. Minorities who cover for racists by letting them say "see! He said it, not me!" can last forever.

http://chicago.eater.com/2013/3/29/6459… Three different stands selling chicken tenders. Dippin dots though?

In that particular pitch, maybe, by like an inch. Not like that is clear to the umpire, the batter, or anyone else, or that fine of a detail is considered for other balks/illegal pitches. I was actually at the game last night, and it was not at all clear.

Doug Fister used to raise then lower his glove twice before pitches, every time, then the umpires decided that was a balk. Also, the fact that he doesn't lift his leg the same way with a runner on first actually negates this argument. It can't both be something inherent to his delivery and something he turns on and…

You can, however, deliver an illegal pitch, which depending on the umpire's judgment either results in a ball or is just considered a non pitch

What? Yes it is. I feel like I'm being gaslit by the entire world with everyone pretending this isn't an illegal pitch.

Last night with the runner on first he toned it way down but was definitely lifting and setting his foot again before his real delivery. Arguably even without baserunners it could still be called an illegal pitch and a ball given.

Nah, pitchers are allowed to do whatever they want, such as using a baseball as a weapon against your preteen son. It's the batters who get haircuts Goose doesn't like who are out of line.

a

Where does it say that? All I see is "seeking non-white actors"

Go to www.backstage.com and browse some casting calls. Age, gender, and race are specified for every part in the very first line. Minor parts typically say All Ethnicities, but leading roles frequently (I'll admit I don't know if it's a majority) specify the race they are seeking. The poster says "seeking non-white…

The flyer says “seeking non-white”. If you go to casting listings at www.backstage.com preferred race is put right in on the first line for all positions. Why is this different?

Why is this particular casting call the only one people care about? Most do contain specifications about the race of the actor directly or indirectly. Why is this the only instance that matters?

Thanks for the clarification. As always, the story is not what the clickbait wants you to think it is.

My understanding is that casting notices for film/tv specify race (among other characteristics) for parts very often. Maybe this is a case where stage performance is different, but let's not pretend like this is new.