obstruction rule

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought the runner had to be in base path and that was not in basepath.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rule 2.00 defines obstruction as the fielder impeding "any runner."

     

    Like most baseball rules, there is a lot of umpire discretion involved

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought the runner had to be in base path and that was not in basepath.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking the same thing.  He was a couple feet off the bag trying to run past middlebrook, plus the fielders natural instinct should be tomjump up and go after the ball so what was he supposed to do, just lay there?

    Regardlessmi think throwing to third was just dumb.  That's the winning run and it's a risky play, plus you have two outs with Koji on the mound....just stupid.

    [/QUOTE]


    So just to be clear, we don't try and make any possible out we can, correct?

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    At the end of the day, it was a judgement call.  Middlebrooks was involved in a play going for the ball.  Craig had a few feet of the line all to himself and if he stayed to his right he would not have run into Middlebrooks.  And, to say he would had been safe had he not fell is not certain; he's a slow and injured runner and he was out by a few feet. 

    I hope we reach G7 now and I hope that Peavy realizes that the Cards are onto his 3/4 delivery trying to stay away from RH's....and that they will just bash him to RF....He needs to adjust and establish the inside half early in the game......

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought the runner had to be in base path and that was not in basepath.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking the same thing.  He was a couple feet off the bag trying to run past middlebrook, plus the fielders natural instinct should be tomjump up and go after the ball so what was he supposed to do, just lay there?

    Regardlessmi think throwing to third was just dumb.  That's the winning run and it's a risky play, plus you have two outs with Koji on the mound....just stupid.

    [/QUOTE]


    So just to be clear, we don't try and make any possible out we can, correct?

    [/QUOTE]

    Not always, depends on the risk reward, the score and the inning in which the play is made..In this instance the risk imho outweighed the reward.

    Bottom of the ninth with Craig representing the winning run a good throw and he's out by 10 feet...a wild throw that goes into the outfield and the games over.

    The risk which transpired and led to the obstruction call was in overthrowing the base and allowing the winning run to score with two outs with your closer on the hill and the bottom of the lineup due up...you have to like your odds of getting the next hitter. in baseball coach speak it was an un-nessesary throw. 

    The reward if Salty makes a good throw is the runners out, the innings over, and you take the bat out of the next hitters hand with the winning run on 3rd. Since there's no guarantee that Koji gets Korma. One could argue that making throw and ending the inning was the play...the net result is that we lost the game...and didn't give Koji a chance to get us back into to the dugout tied...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shouldn't Craig have been required to re-touch third base and run down the baseline ?  He was on the second base side of the bag when he tripped over Middlebrooks.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking the same thing.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shouldn't Craig have been required to re-touch third base and run down the baseline ?  He was on the second base side of the bag when he tripped over Middlebrooks.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking the same thing.

    [/QUOTE]

    WOW!!!!!!!!  I'll have to look at the replay for that. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Craig scored the winning run for the Cardinals' 5-4 victory in Game 3.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Craig scored the winning run for the Cardinals' 5-4 victory in Game 3.

    [/QUOTE]


    why were his feet up?  Is that a natural thing to do?  I don't know but the umps said there was no intent....

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Craig scored the winning run for the Cardinals' 5-4 victory in Game 3.




    why were his feet up?  Is that a natural thing to do?  I don't know but the umps said there was no intent....

    [/QUOTE]

    If you look at the whole play you will see middy was trying to get up.  He is pushing up with his arms.  His first instinct is to get up and back into the game. The minute the runner put his hands on middy's back he put his legs down and remaind completely still.  

    This proves to me middy wasn't trying to obstruct the runner.  If anything the runner was preventing middy from getting out of the way by holding him down.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought the runner had to be in base path and that was not in basepath.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rule 2.00 defines obstruction as the fielder impeding "any runner."

     

    Like most baseball rules, there is a lot of umpire discretion involved

    [/QUOTE]

    it was the proper call by definition...but it was a poor call given that the runner was the one that initiated all of the contact and that the runner instead of rounding the bag actually came back toward second before then tripping over the prone Middlebrooks...

    Joyce can now go to his grave knowing that he's made two horrendous calls...He and MLB are hiding behind the rule book. Can't remeber the last time or ever in my lifetime that the umpires had a press conference after a game to explain the rule book. Torre and MLB should be embarrassed by the situation. 

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought the runner had to be in base path and that was not in basepath.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking the same thing.  He was a couple feet off the bag trying to run past middlebrook, plus the fielders natural instinct should be tomjump up and go after the ball so what was he supposed to do, just lay there?

    Regardlessmi think throwing to third was just dumb.  That's the winning run and it's a risky play, plus you have two outs with Koji on the mound....just stupid.

    [/QUOTE]


    So just to be clear, we don't try and make any possible out we can, correct?

    [/QUOTE]

    Lol I thought about our argument after that happened.  In that case, that was a stupid play.  Throwing to third like that is a very risky play to begin with and we would have been left in a situation with two outs and Koji on the mound.  That was dumb....salty never should have made that throw.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought the runner had to be in base path and that was not in basepath.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rule 2.00 defines obstruction as the fielder impeding "any runner."

     

    Like most baseball rules, there is a lot of umpire discretion involved

    [/QUOTE]

    it was the proper call by definition...but it was a poor call given that the runner was the one that initiated all of the contact and that the runner instead of rounding the bag actually came back toward second before then tripping over the prone Middlebrooks...

    Joyce can now go to his grave knowing that he's made two horrendous calls...He and MLB are hiding behind the rule book. Can't remeber the last time or ever in my lifetime that the umpires had a press conference after a game to explain the rule book. Torre and MLB should be embarrassed by the situation. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's the thing though, there isn't a really clear definition on this.  Its effectively the discretion of the umpire, and given the circumstances I'd say there discretion was bad.....but that doesn't make me right.  There call was justifiable.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Most big cities, especially those with MLB teams, send at least one sportswriter to the WS.  Call it a perk.  But it gives us an outsider's view of the call.  And everyone but everyone--not from St Louis and not from Boston--agrees the umpires made the right call. 

    What is most galling to me is few on this site will admit that Middlebrooks, despite his protestation to the contrary, was clearly trying to obstruct the runner.  He stuck his feet in the air, and it was those feet that entangled the baserunner and in turn led to the obstruction call.  That is, he succeeded in what he was trying to do, but that very success led to the call.  Intention is not required for obstruction, but in this case there was a real possibility there would have been no obstruction call if the feet don't go up in the air like that. 

     

    [/QUOTE]
    It's obvious that you didn't see the play. Craig DID NOT get entangled with Middlebrooks feet at all. He tripped over Middlebrook's body. Watch the play again and I think you'll see it more clearly.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    It's a  stupidly worded rule that should,  but does not,  take intent into play. Joyce had  no choice but to call obstruction. Craig was in the base path,  which is not defined as the chalk line.

    Middlebrooks did nothing wrong and he got penalized for it because of a badly worded (or interpreted) rule.

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's a  stupidly worded rule that should,  but does not,  take intent into play. Joyce had  no choice but to call obstruction. Craig was in the base path,  which is not defined as the chalk line.

    Middlebrooks did nothing wrong and he got penalized for it because of a badly worded (or interpreted) rule.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    but obstruction does not mean the base is automatically rewarded


    there was no judgement exercised at all by the umps on whether he should had scored or not

     

    it was just the HP ump saying "OK, the 3b ump called obstruction so I have no choice but to call him safe"

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's a  stupidly worded rule that should,  but does not,  take intent into play. Joyce had  no choice but to call obstruction. Craig was in the base path,  which is not defined as the chalk line.

    Middlebrooks did nothing wrong and he got penalized for it because of a badly worded (or interpreted) rule.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    As he was stepping over middy he was not in the base line, look at it again.  He had to swerve a bit so he wouldn't be running on the grass

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to The4040club's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Craig scored the winning run for the Cardinals' 5-4 victory in Game 3.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    why were his feet up?  Is that a natural thing to do?  I don't know but the umps said there was no intent....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you look at the whole play you will see middy was trying to get up.  He is pushing up with his arms.  His first instinct is to get up and back into the game. The minute the runner put his hands on middy's back he put his legs down and remaind completely still.  

    This proves to me middy wasn't trying to obstruct the runner.  If anything the runner was preventing middy from getting out of the way by holding him down.

    [/QUOTE]


    great picture and comment by you

    [/QUOTE]

    Just call em' like I see em' Wink

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    I have seen many similar plays in my life and never once have I seen an obstruction called.     It's like baseball "tuck rule", nobody ever saw it called until the infamous Brady incident now it will pop up many more times until MLB alters the rule.    

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber

    Farrell: Umps got obstruction call right,

    but rule needs to be modified. "It needs to have some area in there for intent" #RedSox

     

    maybe they should make a rule

    throw the ball where it could be caught

    and then none of this would have happened



    I think when the throw gets by a 3B with a runner on 3rd

    1 should expect that the run will scored

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber

    Farrell: Umps got obstruction call right,

    but rule needs to be modified. "It needs to have some area in there for intent" #RedSox

     

    maybe they should make a rule

    throw the ball where it could be caught

    and then none of this would have happened



    I think when the throw gets by a 3B with a runner on 3rd

    1 should expect that the run will scored

    [/QUOTE]

    Farrell is a stand up kind of guy, he's not going to whine and complain even though it was a bad call.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't know what happened and you are probably happy the sox lost

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    I hear everybody saying that intent doesn't matter, but it seems to me that it is clearly addressed in the rule book ...

    7.09j [o]bstruction by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such right of way is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball.

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    Reminds me of the '75 series.  I think it was joe Morgan who laid down a bad bunt.  he starts for first but then hesitates, blocking Fisk.  If un impeded, Fisk probably throws out the runner going to second.

    in any case, I hope the rest of games are won instead of being lost due to errors.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber

    Farrell: Umps got obstruction call right,

    but rule needs to be modified. "It needs to have some area in there for intent" #RedSox

     

    maybe they should make a rule

    throw the ball where it could be caught

    and then none of this would have happened



    I think when the throw gets by a 3B with a runner on 3rd

    1 should expect that the run will scored

    [/QUOTE]

    Farrell is a stand up kind of guy, he's not going to whine and complain even though it was a bad call.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't know what happened and you are probably happy the sox lost

    [/QUOTE]

    If a runner is tripped by a fielder in the baseline who isn't making a play on the ball, then it has to be obstruction.  obstruction doesn't mean the fielder did anything wrong.  It means the runner was obstructed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share