OT: World Series | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT: World Series

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scoe said:
Hes in the base path by rule it was the correct call.
Expand ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the call wasn't that he was in the base path as much as it was that he intentionally or unintentionally obstructed the runner, right?
Craig easily could have run from third to home without making contact with Middlebrooks if he went with the most direct route to home. Thats where it's a tough pill to swallow, as Farrell said. Craig went into the area where contact could occur and wasn't able to leap over Middlebrooks back, as he was stumbling all over and actually put his hand on his back first.
Whatever,it's not going to change the call, but it's funny how it could have been avoided if Craig just ran the way most runners ran.
It also doesn't help when Joyce was asked about the baseline and he responded that Craig was right on the chalk. Ummmmm...
 
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.
 
You don't make that call in that situation!!

If it's that close a call you don't END a WORLD SERIES game that way. That umpire should be working at a Dicks Sporting goods, not umpiring at the highest level.

Can't wait to here Francessa on the Fan talk about this one.
 
.-.
The Viking said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the call wasn't that he was in the base path as much as it was that he intentionally or unintentionally obstructed the runner, right?
Craig easily could have run from third to home without making contact with Middlebrooks if he went with the most direct route to home. Thats where it's a tough pill to swallow, as Farrell said. Craig went into the area where contact could occur and wasn't able to leap over Middlebrooks back, as he was stumbling all over and actually put his hand on his back first.
Whatever,it's not going to change the call, but it's funny how it could have been avoided if Craig just ran the way most runners ran.
It also doesn't help when Joyce was asked about the baseline and he responded that Craig was right on the chalk. Ummmmm...
Expand ...

Did you play the game........you don't get up from all slides and start your move to home from the foul territory, especially on a pop up slide where you are ready to go again - slide to the bag not through it.........tough call but certainly the right one.
 
Taco said:
You don't make that call in that situation!!

If it's that close a call you don't END a WORLD SERIES game that way. That umpire should be working at a Dicks Sporting goods, not umpiring at the highest level.

Can't wait to here Francessa on the Fan talk about this one.
Expand ...

And if they don't call it because of the "situation" how are the Cards feeling? It's the right call in any situation and can not be ignored..........
 
upstater said:
I wonder, can a runner just bump into a guy and be automatically awarded home?
Expand ...

I've seen some very good baseball players/runners use that rule at 2nd base on double play balls so yes you could use the rule in your favor if the situation provided itself at 3rd...........
 
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!:rolleyes:
 
The Viking said:
the only one who looked like an 80 year old was Craig. He got up, went well within the 2nd base side of the baseline, and was the one who initiated contact on Middlebrooks's ass cheeks and back. Looking at it again, by the time Craig trips over him, his legs are flat on the ground, not even in contact with him.
Expand ...

He had little or no time to get up but do you throw your legs up in the air in your early twenties to get up from that position? Maybe a 50 plus guy to gain momentum (lol) but those legs went up naturally for a reason.........a young guy gets up with his arms and hands............
 
Taco said:
You don't make that call in that situation!!

If it's that close a call you don't END a WORLD SERIES game that way. That umpire should be working at a Dicks Sporting goods, not umpiring at the highest level.

Can't wait to here Francessa on the Fan talk about this one.
Expand ...


I agree with this in principle. The 3b ump, Jim Joyce, wasn't he the guy who blew the call at 1B in Detroit, costing Gallaraga a no hitter?

The home plate ump, not that I believe it was his call, was the same who blew the call at 2b in game 1.
 
.-.
mauconnfan said:
And if they don't call it because of the "situation" how are the Cards feeling? It's the right call in any situation and can not be ignored..........
Expand ...


Then no complaining about a ticky tack call late in a UConn game that costs the Huskies this year. ;)
 
dsturdy5 said:
Then no complaining about a ticky tack call late in a UConn game that costs the Huskies this year. ;)
Expand ...

I wouldn't do that.....:oops:

I watched it just now again and Sox fans should complain more about Salty and Middlebrooks.........2 very bad plays on that play. #1 they already lost a game potentially due to a bad throw to 3rd and on this one he had ZERO chance to get Craig and should have swallowed it.........#2 as an ex-3rd baseman with the understanding that this guy is going to be safe get the hell off the bag and do not let that ball past you.....he hung too long to try to tag but there was no chance..........go out and get it...........then if you want to get up from the bad throw don't fire those legs and feet up in the air first.......LOL

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/27/world-series-game-3-obstruction-video-cardinals-red-sox/
 
mauconnfan said:
And if they don't call it because of the "situation" how are the Cards feeling? It's the right call in any situation and can not be ignored..........
Expand ...


The call was very questionable - hence the controversy. if it was obvious you make the call, but it wasn't - that's just a fact! I think the call was wrong, but I see how it was close.

You don't make that call, the game goes into extra innings and the outcome is settled by the players and that play is just a footnote.

Instead the game is ended on a very dubious call. It'd be wrong in a spring training game, it's ridiculous in a WS game.
 
Taco said:
The call was very questionable - hence the controversy. if it was obvious you make the call, but it wasn't - that's just a fact! I think the call was wrong, but I see how it was close.

You don't make that call, the game goes into extra innings and the outcome is settled by the players and that play is just a footnote.

Instead the game is ended on a very dubious call. It'd be wrong in a spring training game, it's ridiculous in a WS game.
Expand ...

Oh let me guess you're a Sox fan? Can't see the other side of it?

He tripped over an obstructive player's feet which flew up in the air and while he would have been safe if he didn't trip let's NOT make the call because we need to "let the players decide that game". Well in the harshest of ways they did decide the game. Your catcher made a stupid throw to 1st and your 3rd baseman elected to stand pat and try to make a play of an obvious no play.....they decided the fate and the catcher and 3rd baseman are "players" right?
 
I did write that I see how it was debatable!

Shoe on the other foot I feel the same way - like one of the Card players said (more or less - I don't have the transcript) we'll take it. The call was wrong.

IMO, if you think it's a clear call you're the one seeing through a prism.
 
Scoe said:
It was the right call Middlebrooks certainly didnt make an effort to get out of the way he layed on the ground like an 80 year old just fell from a walker, it takes .05 seconds to get up, Salty was an idiot in the first place to throw that ball to 3rd like a previous poster stated.
Expand ...

If he tried to get up it would have been obstruction.
 
.-.
Taco said:
I did write that I see how it was debatable!

Shoe on the other foot I feel the same way - like one of the Card players said (more or less - I don't have the transcript) we'll take it. The call was wrong.

IMO, if you think it's a clear call you're the one seeing through a prism.
Expand ...

I have no prism don't care really, hate the Sox yes but it's baseball and good games I still enjoy and they certainly have been.....The call was correct no matter when and there's no doubting that, doubting as a fan as to whether it should be called well i do get that and can't blame you there.......

But watch it as I said and then get a little po'd at your catcher especially, awful decision not even bad - plain awful. You want a bad call in a situation well there it is!
 
If I'm a slow as molasses runner, I look for a 3rd baseman to accidentally bump into on my way home.
 
mauconnfan said:
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!:rolleyes:
Expand ...

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

If he's still impeding you would be a very smart slow as molasses runner upstater.......;)
 
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.
 
dsturdy5 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
upstater said:
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.
Expand ...
Nope, that would be interference and the runner would be called out.
 
Danzz said:
Nope, that would be interference and the runner would be called out.
Expand ...

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.
 
upstater said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
storrsroars said:
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.
Expand ...

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?
 
upstater said:
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?
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,640
Messages
4,587,388
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom