Boston Conspirocy Theory

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Is it just me or are the Local faithfuls getting skrewed? Fisrt the Field goal penalty that gave the game to the Jests and now an obstruction call giving game 3 to the Cards. The bounces are not going good for the local teams and I for one have to think something SMELLS!!!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Hey, the Pats got skrewed but the Sox will be fine! I believe in Karma and everything will be OK! Keep the faith!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Pats call,the worst call altho both were bad. The same ump who made the "safe" call in the first game at 2nd base.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory


    It was a bogus call on the Red Sox on the way it ended the game, truth is Salatlamacchia shouldn't have the wild throw. 2 games in a row he's been involved in plays that have screwed the Red Sox. bench him since he's not bringing anything to the plate and let Ross catch.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory


    The umps shouldn't be making calls to decide the game.  Especially not in the 9th inning.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:


    The umps shouldn't be making calls to decide the game.  Especially not in the 9th inning.




    Agreed. That's true.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Stupid.  Discussed at length.  Both calls correct.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Stupid.  Discussed at length.  Both calls correct.




    Yes, but should umps be enforcing rules at such important points in games?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:


    The umps shouldn't be making calls to decide the game.  Especially not in the 9th inning.




    Agreed. That's true.

     

     

    Two different scenarios.

    Think a call that is obscure and just started on the book like the push should have been called at least once in situation before deciding a game to give notice that the NFL will enforce this rule even when it does not effect the outcome of the play. It is very strange that the Patriots did this almost every field goal attempt and it never got called before then. There are a slew of rules that are not called unless they impact the play, offensive holding is one.

    In baseball, obstruction is an old rule and that did fit the definition of obstruction, the umps call it when they see it, they don't wait to call it  to decide a game or based on inlfuence by one of the two coaches.  It was a good call last night.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Cyberknot. Show Cyberknot's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

     Whether or not the obstruction call was a good call, it was a bush league move by Middlebrooks. ARod-esgue.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

     

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:


    The umps shouldn't be making calls to decide the game.  Especially not in the 9th inning.

     




    Agreed. That's true.

     

     

     

    Two different scenarios.

    Think a call that is obscure and just started on the book like the push should have been called at least once in situation before deciding a game to give notice that the NFL will enforce this rule even when it does not effect the outcome of the play. It is very strange that the Patriots did this almost every field goal attempt and it never got called before then. There are a slew of rules that are not called unless they impact the play, offensive holding is one.

    In baseball, obstruction is an old rule and that did fit the definition of obstruction, the umps call it when they see it, they don't wait to call it  to decide a game or based on inlfuence by one of the two coaches.  It was a good call last night.




    I've watched every FG the Pats defended against this season on coaches film.  They only did this twice.  Once in the Saints game and once in the second Jets game.  Most of their FG defenses were clean and within the rule.  There was one early season FG defense (I think in the Buffalo game) where there was some incidental contact that was close to a push, but it wasn't anywhere near the blatant (designed) push that Jones utilized twice this season.  In fact, it was very similar to what one of the Jets' players did last game, which some have claimed was a push but which Ryan claims was incidental contact. In my opinion, both the Pats "push" in the Buffalo game and the Jets "push" last game were too insignificant to be called and probably were merely incidental contact.  Jones's push play which he used once against the Saints and once against the Jets, however, was clearly a designed play and clearly illegal.  

    Sorry guys, but from everything I've seen, Jones's play was unusual and blatant.  The refs missed it in the Saints game, but it should have been called then too.  Belichick has admitted he misunderstood the rule and coached the players incorrectly.  I think that's really it.  Pats made a mistake.  No excuses.

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Does it matter if the runner is off the baseline? It should.

    Allen Craig #21 of the St. Louis Cardinals

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    New rule that should be adopted in all sports from now on:

    No penalty should be called late in any game when the call might cause the Boston team to lose. 

     

    Wink

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Cyberknot. Show Cyberknot's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to Cyberknot's comment:

     Whether or not the obstruction call was a good call, it was a bush league move by Middlebrooks. ARod-esgue.



    What?  What was "bushleague"? Trying to scramble and get off the ground after the ball hit his armpit on a wild throw to 3rd base?

    How is that "bushleague"?  He has no idea where the ball deflected to and has every right to get off the ground to go get the ball. The runner is not guaranteed to advance because the fielder was not able to catch the ball. That's not how the game works.

    The fact is, on a scramble play like that around a bag, any contact by either player is deemed incidental.  There was no sidestepping to block, no holding, nothing.

    Awful call and it's creepy a WS game can be decided by something so incredibly subjective to the point it's not really justifiable.

     




     Is that how you would try to get up off of the ground, by picking up your feet? Seems to me you would put them on the ground if you wanted to stand. It was bush league.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Last nights call unfortanutly was the correct call, I think the rule is just a bad rule.

    The Pats game and the Sox game, I hate to see games decided on fluke things like what happened last night and last week.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    Last nights call unfortanutly was the correct call, I think the rule is just a bad rule.

    The Pats game and the Sox game, I hate to see games decided on fluke things like what happened last night and last week.




    I think there is a case both ways.  Tough nonetheless.  Didn't the runner at third take out Middlebrooks and casue him to be down face first? That should count for something.  Plus, the fact that the runner was a foot or two inside the bag should have been considered. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    It was sadly the correct call.   However, it would have been nice if they had gotten this one right too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRw2_KvHcPk

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    Last nights call unfortanutly was the correct call, I think the rule is just a bad rule.

    The Pats game and the Sox game, I hate to see games decided on fluke things like what happened last night and last week.



    It is not the "right" call at all. It's a very subjective call by an umpire who apparently wants to make it about him vs realizing Craig could be called for the same thing by pushing down on Middlebrooks's back. 

    That means, you let it go and it's incidental.  Clearly, you hgve never played competitive baseball nor do you watch it.

    Obstruction is called when the player steps in front of the runner..  Middlebrooks was ON THE GROUND already and not in the baseline.  To enforce that rule with a fielder on the ground, simply because the runner did not step to his right in the baseline first, is outrageous.   If Craig had gathered himself and simply stepped to his right and then run home, he wouldn't have stumbled over Middlebrooks.  

    Not the "right call" at all. It's incredible subjective at best and in no way should be the deciding element of a WS game. Absolutely not.

    Learn the elements of a game, before mouthing off about it.




    Doesn't matter if it's incidental or not.  The rule is written to where it does not matter if it is incidental or not.  Yes, I played many years of organized baseball, I have even coached baseball.  Have you ever played the game?  Also, for future arguments with me I played many years of organized football, basketball and baseball, coached all of them too.  Have you ever played an organized sport?  It sure doesn't seem like it.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    It was sadly the correct call.   However, it would have been nice if they had gotten this one right too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRw2_KvHcPk



    It's not the right call whatsoever.  Basically, Jim Joyce is saying that within 1 second, Middlebrooks needed to roll over to the 2b side to clear a path wide enough for Craig's ability to cleanly run to home WELL OUT OF THE BASELINE.  That's not a rule. A fielder has no responsibility to do that.

    Craig also pushes down on Middlebrooks's back, so how is that not blocking Middlebrooks from getting up?

    Once a player creates his own baseline like that, he's on his own.  If Middlebrooks moved his position, to impede, then you'd be correct.  Middlebrooks did not mover laterally and was in the baseline either.  That play is nothing. It's a bang/bang contact play that is ALWAYS deemed incidental due to the nature of how that play unfolded. YOu check to see if you can make it as the runner and you either go or stay. Period.

    The runner cannot just assume he has a clear path after turning his head back around to run forward. If Craig looks to see where Middlebrooks was first, he would simply take an inside path and run down the baseline.

    As per usual here, Catsfish in recent weeks, you are incorrect.

    Just because the broadcasters, some in the media, the union umps with Torre sit there and tell us it's correct, that doesn't mean it is. 

     



    A fielder has the responsibility to not be in the way.  It doesn't matter why he was there or if he intended to be in the there.  Technically the baseline is within three feet of the line. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    Does anyone else think there's something umm . . . unmanly . . . about whining you lost the game because the refs made a bad call?  Please, this whole thread is an embarassment to a great sports city.  Maybe we should all be playing with Barbie dolls . . . 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Stupid.  Discussed at length.  Both calls correct.




    The Jets game was the right call and there happens to be an update from the NFL today. NFL is now showing that both the Patriots and Jets committed the infraction and warned all teams about pushing. So much for Rex calling BB a liar.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9888642/nfl-warns-all-32-head-coaches-continue-enforce-push-rule?ex_cid=espnapi_public

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    It was sadly the correct call.   However, it would have been nice if they had gotten this one right too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRw2_KvHcPk



    It's not the right call whatsoever.  Basically, Jim Joyce is saying that within 1 second, Middlebrooks needed to roll over to the 2b side to clear a path wide enough for Craig's ability to cleanly run to home WELL OUT OF THE BASELINE.  That's not a rule. A fielder has no responsibility to do that.

    Craig also pushes down on Middlebrooks's back, so how is that not blocking Middlebrooks from getting up?

    Once a player creates his own baseline like that, he's on his own.  If Middlebrooks moved his position, to impede, then you'd be correct.  Middlebrooks did not mover laterally and was in the baseline either.  That play is nothing. It's a bang/bang contact play that is ALWAYS deemed incidental due to the nature of how that play unfolded. YOu check to see if you can make it as the runner and you either go or stay. Period.

    The runner cannot just assume he has a clear path after turning his head back around to run forward. If Craig looks to see where Middlebrooks was first, he would simply take an inside path and run down the baseline.

    As per usual here, Catsfish in recent weeks, you are incorrect.

    Just because the broadcasters, some in the media, the union umps with Torre sit there and tell us it's correct, that doesn't mean it is. 

     



    A fielder has the responsibility to not be in the way.  It doesn't matter why he was there or if he intended to be in the there.  Technically the baseline is within three feet of the line. 




    Bingo!! MeadowlandMike is also correct.  Man, I am so tired of Rusty acting like he knows it all.  I know Meadowland Mike gets a lot of crap in this forum but he has some good points and he is correct here.  How does that make Rusty look!  Hahaha!!!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Does anyone else think there's something umm . . . unmanly . . . about whining you lost the game because the refs made a bad call?  Please, this whole thread is an embarassment to a great sports city.  Maybe we should all be playing with Barbie dolls . . . 

     



    So, you approve of inept officiating? Did you see Game 1 and the call at 2B by DeMuth?  How is that whining?

    What is wrong with expecting quality officiating in a championship game?




    Didn't they get that call correct?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    Last nights call unfortanutly was the correct call, I think the rule is just a bad rule.

    The Pats game and the Sox game, I hate to see games decided on fluke things like what happened last night and last week.



    It is not the "right" call at all. It's a very subjective call by an umpire who apparently wants to make it about him vs realizing Craig could be called for the same thing by pushing down on Middlebrooks's back. 

    That means, you let it go and it's incidental.  Clearly, you hgve never played competitive baseball nor do you watch it.

    Obstruction is called when the player steps in front of the runner..  Middlebrooks was ON THE GROUND already and not in the baseline.  To enforce that rule with a fielder on the ground, simply because the runner did not step to his right in the baseline first, is outrageous.   If Craig had gathered himself and simply stepped to his right and then run home, he wouldn't have stumbled over Middlebrooks.  

    Not the "right call" at all. It's incredible subjective at best and in no way should be the deciding element of a WS game. Absolutely not.

    Learn the elements of a game, before mouthing off about it.




    Doesn't matter if it's incidental or not.  Have you ever played the game?



    Did you just ask me if I played baseball? LOL!

    Forget it, TFB12. I've forgotten more about the game of baseball than you'll ever know.

    It does matter if it's incidental.  The intent has to be for the fielder to block the runner.  The Middlebrooks never changed his position laterally to block the runner. Period.

    There are many, many times around the bag where a collision like that happens and within a second time, each player might be seen as impeding the other, and for that, it's incidental.

    The best argument would be that Middlebrooks was laying in the baseline, which obviously is not close to what happned. Craig also pushes down on Middlebrooks!  Incidental. 

     




    No, it does not matter if it is incidental, ya goof!  Learn the rules.  Clearly you have not played.  And no, wiffle ball or xcity league does not qualify, everyone has played those hahah!!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Boston Conspirocy Theory

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    It was sadly the correct call.   However, it would have been nice if they had gotten this one right too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRw2_KvHcPk



    It's not the right call whatsoever.  Basically, Jim Joyce is saying that within 1 second, Middlebrooks needed to roll over to the 2b side to clear a path wide enough for Craig's ability to cleanly run to home WELL OUT OF THE BASELINE.  That's not a rule. A fielder has no responsibility to do that.

    Craig also pushes down on Middlebrooks's back, so how is that not blocking Middlebrooks from getting up?

    Once a player creates his own baseline like that, he's on his own.  If Middlebrooks moved his position, to impede, then you'd be correct.  Middlebrooks did not mover laterally and was in the baseline either.  That play is nothing. It's a bang/bang contact play that is ALWAYS deemed incidental due to the nature of how that play unfolded. YOu check to see if you can make it as the runner and you either go or stay. Period.

    The runner cannot just assume he has a clear path after turning his head back around to run forward. If Craig looks to see where Middlebrooks was first, he would simply take an inside path and run down the baseline.

    As per usual here, Catsfish in recent weeks, you are incorrect.

    Just because the broadcasters, some in the media, the union umps with Torre sit there and tell us it's correct, that doesn't mean it is. 

     



    A fielder has the responsibility to not be in the way.  It doesn't matter why he was there or if he intended to be in the there.  Technically the baseline is within three feet of the line. 




    Bingo!! MeadowlandMike is also correct.  Man, I am so tired of Rusty acting like he knows it all.  I know Meadowland Mike gets a lot of crap in this forum but he has some good points and he is correct here.  How does that make Rusty look!  Hahaha!!!




    I still think it was a tough call.  But what if the Cards had lost?  They would have had a legit claim that they got shafted.  I think JF is as much to blame for that loss as anyone.  He is not as good with the Xs & Os as Tito.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share