OT: World Series

[upstater]

By the way all of my answers here are strictly because of the "rule" of the call which makes it correct..........I certainly feel the Sox fans resistance to understand why it was called........I doubt I would be too happy!

Yeah, this was my response to McCarver's explanation last night that intentional/unintentional doesn't matter. in that case, runners should just run into people and be awarded the next base.

 

[mauconnfan]

If I'm a slow as molasses runner, I look for a 3rd baseman to accidentally bump into on my way home.

If he's still impeding you would be a very smart slow as molasses runner upstater.......

 

[storrsroars]

I recently finished reading "As They See 'Em" by Bruce Weber. Great read on umps and what they really train for and do. And how much every ump dreads being on that stage on a game-changing play in the WS.

With that lens, what Joyce and DeMuth did last night was not only 100% correct, it was courageous, awesome and entirely appropriate in maintaining the integrity of the game.

 

[Danzz]

Letter of the law, it is the correct call. However, one can argue that Middlebrooks had made a play on the ball and was in the position he was because of it. His intention to get up and continue the play is a direct result of the play on the ball. If that is the case, obstruction can be waived if my understanding of the rule is correct.

Let's not forget the Sox were in that position because of a number of 50/50 managerial and player calls earlier in the game. I like Farrell and his explanation of why Workman went to the plate made sense but in hindsight, he should have let Napoli bat. However, he can't manage in hindsight. Similarly, Salty shouldn't have thrown that ball, he struggles making routine throws to 2nd. There were other plays last night too that put them in that position. In the end, the series is only 2-1 and this Sox team is nothing if not resilient. Let's see what tonight brings.

The rule doesn't work that way. Once Middlebrooks didn't catch Salty's throw and wasn't in possession of the ball, he obstructed the runner. If Middlebrooks had caught the ball there would have been no obstruction.Salty had a play at 3rd and should have thrown the ball and a decent throw would have nailed the runner. Throws to 3rd are killing the Sox; the other being Breslow's throw.
Hopefully tonight it will be the Cards turn to screw up.

 

[Danzz]

Yeah, this was my response to McCarver's explanation last night that intentional/unintentional doesn't matter. in that case, runners should just run into people and be awarded the next base.

Nope, that would be interference and the runner would be called out.

 

[upstater]

Nope, that would be interference and the runner would be called out.

Interference after the ball is already by? What are they interfering with? Joe Torre was clear that the ball was no longer in play for the third baseman. If it was, then Middlebrooks would have every right to be there. It would not be obstruction if he could still possible make a play on the ball. It's a key part of the entire obstruction rule. So there is no interference. If the ball is by the fielder, run into him--but make it look good.

On the other hand, what if Middlebrooks were getting up to take a throw at third? Or what if he didn't know where the ball was and was scrambling for it himself? Say the ball hits Craig and rolls into the basepath? Does Middlebrooks have to wait for Craig to clear the area of the ball before attempting to make a play on it?

Crazy stuff.

 

[storrsroars]

Interference after the ball is already by? What are they interfering with? Joe Torre was clear that the ball was no longer in play for the third baseman. If it was, then Middlebrooks would have every right to be there. It would not be obstruction if he could still possible make a play on the ball. It's a key part of the entire obstruction rule. So there is no interference. If the ball is by the fielder, run into him--but make it look good.

On the other hand, what if Middlebrooks were getting up to take a throw at third? Or what if he didn't know where the ball was and was scrambling for it himself? Say the ball hits Craig and rolls into the basepath? Does Middlebrooks have to wait for Craig to clear the area of the ball before attempting to make a play on it?

Crazy stuff.

As Harold Reynolds explained last night, when the fielder has attempted a play and no longer has the ball they MUST get out of the way. That's why players are taught that when caught in a run down, try to run into a guy who's in the basepath who just got rid of the ball. You'll almost always get the interference call if you take a relatively straight path to a base.

 

[Waquoit]

they still owe us for Ed Armbrister

 

[upstater]

As Harold Reynolds explained last night, when the fielder has attempted a play and no longer has the ball they MUST get out of the way. That's why players are taught that when caught in a run down, try to run into a guy who's in the basepath who just got rid of the ball. You'll almost always get the interference call if you take a relatively straight path to a base.

This explanation doesn't help at all, since Middlebrooks was on the ground and hadn't even gotten up yet to get out of the way.

So, again, I ask, when does the play on the ball end? Torre emphasized the play on the ball. If you dive to make a play on the ball, are you supposed to dematerialize or... what?

 

[storrsroars]

This explanation doesn't help at all, since Middlebrooks was on the ground and hadn't even gotten up yet to get out of the way.

So, again, I ask, when does the play on the ball end? Torre emphasized the play on the ball. If you dive to make a play on the ball, are you supposed to dematerialize or... what?

Yep. I think Torre even noted that doing so might be difficult, but that's the way the rule is written and thus, enforced properly.

Any beefs should not be directed at the umps, but the rule.

 

[BoatShow]

Yep. I think Torre even noted that doing so might be difficult, but that's the way the rule is written and thus, enforced properly.

Any beefs should not be directed at the umps, but the rule.

How are you supposed to get out of the way when the runner takes a wildly unpredictable path to the plate?

 

[upstater]

Yep. I think Torre even noted that doing so might be difficult, but that's the way the rule is written and thus, enforced properly.

Any beefs should not be directed at the umps, but the rule.

Still doesn't answer the question though.

When is the player deemed to no longer be trying to make a play on the ball? When the ball gets by? If so, what if the ball didn't get by? Then what? (i.e. what if the ball was lying nearby)?

 

[Danzz]

This explanation doesn't help at all, since Middlebrooks was on the ground and hadn't even gotten up yet to get out of the way.

So, again, I ask, when does the play on the ball end? Torre emphasized the play on the ball. If you dive to make a play on the ball, are you supposed to dematerialize or... what?

The play on the ball ends when Middlebrooks doesn't catch and control the throw. If Midlebrooks knocks the ball down the call would have been more difficult. If Middlebrooks dives and catches the ball there is no obstruction. It doesn't matter that Middlebrooks has nowhere else to go and the obstruction was unintentional. BTW, I'm not entirely convinced that the obstruction was unintentional: Middlebooks lifted both legs in the air in what was not an attempt to get to his feet.
I didn't like it but the call was the correct call. All of this is moot if Salty makes a decent throw.

 

[upstater]

The play on the ball ends when Middlebrooks doesn't catch and control the throw. If Midlebrooks knocks the ball down the call would have been more difficult. If Middlebrooks dives and catches the ball there is no obstruction. It doesn't matter that Middlebrooks has nowhere else to go and the obstruction was unintentional. BTW, I'm not entirely convinced that the obstruction was unintentional: Middlebooks lifted both legs in the air in what was not an attempt to get to his feet.
I didn't like it but the call was the correct call. All of this is moot if Salty makes a decent throw.

In my post to mauconnfan, I think I stated too that I thought the call was correct.

I'm just questioning the rule. And, I have the feeling that had it not been called, Joe Torre would have emphasized how Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball, and hadn't moved. He would have emphasized that wording in the rule.

 

[BoatShow]

The play on the ball ends when Middlebrooks doesn't catch and control the throw. If Midlebrooks knocks the ball down the call would have been more difficult. If Middlebrooks dives and catches the ball there is no obstruction. It doesn't matter that Middlebrooks has nowhere else to go and the obstruction was unintentional. BTW, I'm not entirely convinced that the obstruction was unintentional: Middlebooks lifted both legs in the air in what was not an attempt to get to his feet.
I didn't like it but the call was the correct call. All of this is moot if Salty makes a decent throw.

That'd be all good if Craig tripped over his legs, but it was his back/ass.

 

[mauconnfan]

That'd be all good if Craig tripped over his legs, but it was his back/ass.

You need a drink Boat, have to come to grips with this one and move on. The fact you think he took a mildly unpredictable path - he slid into 3rd base then proceeded to jump up and move forward towards home so explain to me the path you expect. You don't slide past the base you slide on it then pop up and run so you shouldn't be on the foul side of the path unless you don't know how to slide....everything was fine and as I said and Danzz admitted to also, no one did anything crazy except that sudden urge to make those back legs go up in the air....natural reaction maybe but whether people like to admit it or not he did that on purpose anyway!

 

[BoatShow]

You need a drink Boat, have to come to grips with this one and move on. The fact you think he took a mildly unpredictable path - he slid into 3rd base then proceeded to jump up and move forward towards home so explain to me the path you expect. You don't slide past the base you slide on it then pop up and run so you shouldn't be on the foul side of the path unless you don't know how to slide....everything was fine and as I said and Danzz admitted to also, no one did anything crazy except that sudden urge to make those back legs go up in the air....natural reaction maybe but whether people like to admit it or not he did that on purpose anyway!

Lucky for you I just made an 11th hour trip to the package store for a sixer of Boston Lager!

 

[Danzz]

That'd be all good if Craig tripped over his legs, but it was his back/ass.

We could go on with this forever and that is the beauty of baseball. One could argue that by Middlebrooks raising his legs it caused the runner to take a different path.
As one who has umpired I can tell you that these ML guys are outstanding and they usually get it right. It is incredible how often they get the bang bang plays right. My philosophy: if it is a bang bang play and I'm not sure, the call is out. All the not sure plays are outs. It gets me home sooner.

 

[mauconnfan]

Lucky for you I just made an 11th hour trip to the package store for a sixer of Boston Lager!

Lucky for you too.........enjoy and maybe it will all swing your way tonight.........maybe Buccy will even have extra in those lox in the back for this one!

 

[BoatShow]

I apologize for disrupting the avatar mojo on this page.

 

[jleves]

Full disclosure - I've been a Cardinals fan since I was about 5 years old, so take the rest of the post with that in mind.

For the record, I would have much rather seen the Cards win that in a more traditional manner, but the call is absolutely correct and has to be made. Fortunately, the way MLB writes the rule, there is literally no grey area. Intent does not figure into the call. The runner has the right to a direct path to the next base. Once the ball is past the fielder, he is no longer fielding and cannot impact that path in any way. It does not matter that he didn't have time to get up or move. That also is not considered in the rule. Further, the base path is considered to be three feet to either side of the chalk, which he is clearly in.

The rule is in the game for a reason. In the most extreme case, teams could just field 6 NFL linemen sized guys to stand in the base path in front of home plate and the game becomes Red Rover. Obviously the rule is in place so that people can't purposely hinder a runner. Because you often can't be sure of intent, they removed that from the equation. The fact the people debate whether he threw his legs up on purpose or not (even though it does not matter) is exactly why intent was removed from making the call.

Playing devils advocate - let's say he did throw his legs up in order to slow or trip up the runner. How can you not award the base and just play on? The fact that the rule doesn't give the umps the luxury of deciding that is actually good. Instead of judgement call, it's a black and white rule applied the same way every time.

Now all that being said, obviously STL fans are arguing it's correct and most Boston fans argue it's a bad call. But when you look to the middle - those who aren't heavily invested, the vast majority agree it's the right call. I've not seen a single online write up that doesn't agree with the call that was made. Nobody really likes it, but most agree it was correct.

Boston could easily be up 3-0 in the series if they don't make essentially the same mistake twice. Hold on to the ball there - let your closer close and take it to the 10th. Can't feel sorry for the tough call - they put themselves into a position where it had to be made.

 

[mauconnfan]

I apologize for disrupting the avatar mojo on this page.

It is fairly lame I must say.......but a few Boston Lagers should help you find a new one which may also propel you to a "W" tonight. May I suggest a half naked picture of Buccy's wife?

 

[mauconnfan]

Full disclosure - I've been a Cardinals fan since I was about 5 years old, so take the rest of the post with that in mind.

For the record, I would have much rather seen the Cards win that in a more traditional manner, but the call is absolutely correct and has to be made. Fortunately, the way MLB writes the rule, there is literally no grey area. Intent does not figure into the call. The runner has the right to a direct path to the next base. Once the ball is past the fielder, he is no longer fielding and cannot impact that path in any way. It does not matter that he didn't have time to get up or move. That also is not considered in the rule. Further, the base path is considered to be three feet to either side of the chalk, which he is clearly in.

The rule is in the game for a reason. In the most extreme case, teams could just field 6 NFL linemen sized guys to stand in the base path in front of home plate and the game becomes Red Rover. Obviously the rule is in place so that people can't purposely hinder a runner. Because you often can't be sure of intent, they removed that from the equation. The fact the people debate whether he threw his legs up on purpose or not (even though it does not matter) is exactly why intent was removed from making the call.

Playing devils advocate - let's say he did throw his legs up in order to slow or trip up the runner. How can you not award the base and just play on? The fact that the rule doesn't give the umps the luxury of deciding that is actually good. Instead of judgement call, it's a black and white rule applied the same way every time.

Now all that being said, obviously STL fans are arguing it's correct and most Boston fans argue it's a bad call. But when you look to the middle - those who aren't heavily invested, the vast majority agree it's the right call. I've not seen a single online write up that doesn't agree with the call that was made. Nobody really likes it, but most agree it was correct.

Boston could easily be up 3-0 in the series if they don't make essentially the same mistake twice. Hold on to the ball there - let your closer close and take it to the 10th. Can't feel sorry for the tough call - they put themselves into a position where it had to be made.

Yeah but as a Cards fan you can't be happy to get 3 terrible AB's vs Peavy with bases loaded and nobody out.........that could have opened that game up for good.........

On the other hand Sox fans can be thinking if Middlebrooks jumps off the bag to catch that or maybe even makes a play on Holliday's grounder down the line things may have been different.......is it me or is he slow footed at 3rd?

Anyway for a guy who doesn't have anything invested in the series other than watching Sox fans suffer in agony, it's been a very good last couple games with what I'm sure will be more entertainment to come!

 

[Waquoit]

Sox got jobbed, pure and simple.

 

[BoatShow]

How is game 5 gonna end? Bases loaded catcher's interference? The would be winning run gets hit with a batted ball?