2013 MLB Postseason

Toggle sidebar
DodgerKing said:
I know I said I wouldn't post anymore on this thread, but I do want to just clarify the rules here.

First, not that it matters what most think, but most do think they got the call correct. What does matter is that MLB agrees with the call as well.

Second, there does not have to be intent for obstruction to occur. It was called when his feet went up in the air after the play.

http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp?partnerId=as_mlb_20131027_13653334

Third, the image above posted by Hart5150 actual proves that the fielder was in the runners baseline. By the rules of baseball, the runner sets the baseline. Since that was where the runner was at the time and the fielder was directly in line created by the runner and home-plate, he was technically in the runners baseline.

I know it sucks that a game was ended on something like this, particularly for Sox fans, but they did get the call correct.
Click to expand...

The fielder has the right to field the ball .... NO ?

What happens if he had caught the ball , or stopped the ball from going into the outfield, presuming the runner still went to home ... whats the call then ?
 
Jimbo said:
The fielder has the right to field the ball .... NO ?
Click to expand...
Yes he does. It was the fielding attempt that led to the call, it was his feet going up and knocking him down after the ball was in the outfield and after the runner got up and was running towards the plate that led to the call. The call was made when his feet went up afterword, knocking Craig down, even though it was not intentional. Since he did interfere with the runner in his running path, the obstruction rule can be called.
What happens if he had caught the ball , or stopped the ball from going into the outfield, presuming the runner still went to home ... whats the call then ?
Click to expand...
You're also looking at a completely different play. If he caught the ball, Craig would not have gotten up and tried to run home. He would have stayed at 3rd and none of this would have happened.
 
raoul5788 said:
For all of you that think Boston got shafted on the obstruction call, you don't know the rule. If Middlebrooks had just laid there I doubt the call would have been made. When he raised his feet, end of game.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that the call wasn't correct according to the rule (because obviously it was), my argument is that the rule is BS (IF there's no intent). I vehemently disagree with you that the call wouldn't have been made if Middlebrooks "just laid there".

Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me anymore. After getting some sleep, my anger has dramatically shifted to Farrell and Saltalamacchia!
 
Can someone point me to the rule that says Allen Craig doesn't have to touch home plate, ever?

I know it's semantics, but so was the judgement call against Middlebrooks. If rules are to be strictly enforced than let's do it all the way around.
 
raoul5788 said:
For all of you that think Boston got shafted on the obstruction call, you don't know the rule. If Middlebrooks had just laid there I doubt the call would have been made. When he raised his feet, end of game.
Click to expand...
Not true. It was inconsequential whether or not Middlebrooks raised his feet:

If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.
Click to expand...
 
For the first time, I really feel like the losses of Hanrahan, Bailey and Miller are starting to catch up with the Red Sox. If they had any of them available, there's no way Farrell even considers letting a pitcher bat in the top of the 9th of a tie game.
 
Last night's game was the first World Series game that ended with an error since game 6 of the '86 series (aka "Buckner game").

What is it with Saturday night and World Series games? Just off the top of my head:

1985: Cardinals-Royals game 6 (Don Denkinger)
1986: Red Sox-Mets game 6
1988: A's-Dodgers game 1 (Kurt Gibson)
1992: Blue Jays-Braves game 6 (Jays win WS in an extra innings thriller)
1993: Phillies-Blue Jays game 6 (Joe Carter)

Some of the craziest moments in recent WS history have happened on a Saturday night!
 
DodgerKing said:
Yes he does. It was the fielding attempt that led to the call, it was his feet going up and knocking him down after the ball was in the outfield and after the runner got up and was running towards the plate that led to the call. The call was made when his feet went up afterword, knocking Craig down, even though it was not intentional. Since he did interfere with the runner in his running path, the obstruction rule can be called.
You're also looking at a completely different play. If he caught the ball, Craig would not have gotten up and tried to run home. He would have stayed at 3rd and none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...

Gotcha ...
 
cosmo_kramer said:
Not true. It was inconsequential whether or not Middlebrooks raised his feet:
Click to expand...

Yes, by the letter of the rule. In the practical application, if Middlebrooks just laid there and didn't raise his feet, there likely would be no obstruction call unless the runner tripped over him with his feet down.
 
OK,
In an effort to get more bats in the game in St. Louis for the Sox, I propose the following moves.

Seeing Papi has to stay at 1B, I would put Napoli at 3rd, really need his bat in the line up and Ross to Catcher.
 
Jimbo said:
OK,
In an effort to get more bats in the game in St. Louis for the Sox, I propose the following moves.

Seeing Papi has to stay at 1B, I would put Napoli at 3rd, really need his bat in the line up and Ross to Catcher.
Click to expand...

Ross in at catcher? ABSOLUTELY!!

Napoli at 3B? Please NO!! You need a semblance of defense at the hot corner, and having Nap there smacks of desperation, IMO.
 
Confused Adam Wainwright thought he ‘just witnessed the worst call in the history of the game’ ...With video of the incident ... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...nessed-worst-call-history-210636422--mlb.html Game 3 highest rated World Series game since 2009 http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/10/27/5035934/2013-world-series-game-3-tv-ratings-red-sox-cardinals Red Sox blast Game 3 loss as a 'joke,' but umpires made right call http://sports.yahoo.com/news/red-so...---but-umpires-made-right-call-065018583.html Obstruction call becomes talk of baseball world http://sports.yahoo.com/news/obstruction-call-becomes-talk-baseball-211021012--mlb.html Allen Craig’s double put Cards in business before obstruction led to his ‘Kirk Gibson’ moment http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...-business-obstruction-led-170158132--mlb.html World Series Game 4 lineup notes: Ross in for Red Sox, Descalso in for Cardinals, Craig OK http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...e-4-lineup-notes-ross-red-220354945--mlb.html
 
Last edited:
Shane Victorino out of tonight's lineup with back issues. Daniel Nava will now play RF, while Jonny Gomes will be in RF. Vic has been struggling at the plate, but this will certainly hurt the defense tonight.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top