obstruction rule

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    For the gazillionth time, THE RUNNER ESTABLISHES HIS OWN BASELINE, and that doesn't happen until he actually starts running.  The foul line means nothing in this case.

    So, you are saying he could have run to the mound, tripped over the pitcher and been ruled safe at home?

    Yes, that is extreme, but there has to be some point where judgement comes into play. You may disagree that 3 feet is Okay. I and others feel the runner caused the contact. He ran to the fielder who was not in his direct path to home.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Then why is a runner called out when he tries to avoid a tag and he is out of the baseline?  And why do they have those neat little white lines that create a path to run in from home to first.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    Because by the time a tag is being applied, he has established a baseline.  That's when the 3 foot rule comes into play.  The white lines are there to allow a throwing lane to first base from the home plate area.  The batter-runner can run anywhere he wants down the first base line on an outfield base hit for example, or even a grounder to 3rd, 2nd or short.

    [QUOTE]

    If the runner where to continue straight he would have run to home plate on the grass.  Is he allowed to establish a baseline on the grass?  Of course not, so your argument holds no water

    [/QUOTE]


    Watch a runner attempting to score from second sometime as he rounds 3rd.  He's not making 90 degree turns.  They go onto the grass towards the coaches box all the time.  So yes, the baseline can be established on the grass.  No difference on the fair side.  You don't have to like them, but those are the rules.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And, if instead of running a wide turn around 3rd, the runner decides to abruptly change direction, make a 90 degree turn, and plow into a fielder standing on the IF grass, that is obstruction to you?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

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

    In response to painter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someoneexplain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction? 

    [/QUOTE]

    If a rule is interpreted incorrectly, or in its language establishes an impossibility (a fielder immediately physically disappearing cannot occur in this dimension), the umpires and MLB have the power to overturn a bad rule and/or a call made by reviewing the irrefutable facts on a digital video format.  The league, Mr. Torre, does have the power to do this right now, but it does not possess the will or the courage to say that its umpires were wrong. Video evidence shows Craig as the obstructor (twice), not Middlebrooks, but to avoid further confusion or argument, the only equitable result was to vacate the call and send the game to the 10th inning.  

    [/QUOTE]

    They should have called the umps together to make the right call

    [/QUOTE]

    All the umps agreed with the call.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I've watched this about 1,000,000,002 times in real time, slow motion, and paused the video at certain frames.

    Middlebrooks dives to his left, his feet are already up in the air.

    Craig slides into third and is turning to his left as he slides -> this results in him taking a step back towards second base in an attempt to run home, however he has not moved enough to be out of the base path.

    Meanwhile with Middlebrooks and his legs up in the air, he actually never brought them up, he had them up and brought them half way down.  His legs would have blocked the third base path, so perhaps he was trying to leave an open runway for the runner and didn't want to get called....he looked legitimately puzzled and not knowing what to do. (I think anyone would)

    Meanwhile the Craig in an attempt to go home has both hands on Middlebrooks back while his feet are up, he never really had great balance the entire time until after he got up from his trip but you can CLEARLY see his right foot planted in front of the feet that Middlebrooks had up and his left foot trips him up right on Wills right hip.

     

    Here's the kicker though, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. Intent, not intentional, legs up, legs down...whatever.  The play was dead and the fielder was obstructing the runner.

    If anything this play could be used as precedent to possibly tweak the definition of a dead play.  They even mentioned that thought on ESPN the other night....or maybe it was FOX. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This is probably the best explanation I've seen here; here's guessing you shall see a rewrite of this rule pronto.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    In response to painter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someoneexplain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction? 

    [/QUOTE]

    If a rule is interpreted incorrectly, or in its language establishes an impossibility (a fielder immediately physically disappearing cannot occur in this dimension), the umpires and MLB have the power to overturn a bad rule and/or a call made by reviewing the irrefutable facts on a digital video format.  The league, Mr. Torre, does have the power to do this right now, but it does not possess the will or the courage to say that its umpires were wrong. Video evidence shows Craig as the obstructor (twice), not Middlebrooks, but to avoid further confusion or argument, the only equitable result was to vacate the call and send the game to the 10th inning.  

    [/QUOTE]

    They should have called the umps together to make the right call

    [/QUOTE]

    All the umps agreed with the call.

    [/QUOTE]

    Did they call them together during the game? If so I missed that.  

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

    [/QUOTE]

    That's amusing, but a still  picture proves  nothing. Craig was  trying to get to his  feet, as Middlebrooks was. The  replay clearly shows Craig running within the base path.

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Then why is a runner called out when he tries to avoid a tag and he is out of the baseline?  And why do they have those neat little white lines that create a path to run in from home to first.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    Because by the time a tag is being applied, he has established a baseline.  That's when the 3 foot rule comes into play.  The white lines are there to allow a throwing lane to first base from the home plate area.  The batter-runner can run anywhere he wants down the first base line on an outfield base hit for example, or even a grounder to 3rd, 2nd or short.

    [QUOTE]

    If the runner where to continue straight he would have run to home plate on the grass.  Is he allowed to establish a baseline on the grass?  Of course not, so your argument holds no water

    [/QUOTE]


    Watch a runner attempting to score from second sometime as he rounds 3rd.  He's not making 90 degree turns.  They go onto the grass towards the coaches box all the time.  So yes, the baseline can be established on the grass.  No difference on the fair side.  You don't have to like them, but those are the rules.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Big difference on the fair side.  The foul side isn't in the field of play, no one is positioned out there so there can be no obstruction by a player.  On the fair side there are players in position on the grass apples and oranges.

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg



    That's amusing, but a still  picture proves  nothing. Craig was  trying to get to his  feet, as Middlebrooks was. The  replay clearly shows Craig running within the base path.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He fell over middy's waist which wasn't in the base path.  He had to take a few steps to his right to get in the base bath.  If he continued straight after he fell over middy he would have been running on the infield grass.

    I don't care that some here say a runner establishes his own base path.  I have never seen a runner go from one base to another on the infield grass as the base runner would have had to do if he didn't correct his path after going over middy.

    Bottom line, middy's waist wasn't in the base path, the runner chose to go outside of the base path to go over middy.  Middy didn't obstruct him.

    This still shot doesn't make that clear, look at the vidio again.

    Neither ump watched the play in the beginning, 3r base ump was watching the ball go to L field, home plate ump was watching the play at first.  Third base ump said he looked at the play and went by instinct.  Rubbish!

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     



    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not considered obstruction if a player is making a play on the ball, ala a catcher receiving a throw.  Watch Napoli last night put his foot in front of the base as he's taking the throw, forcing Wong to go around it ever so slightly (which was the deciding factor in being out).

    [/QUOTE]


    Wasn't Middlebrooks making a play on the ball?

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     



    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not considered obstruction if a player is making a play on the ball, ala a catcher receiving a throw.  Watch Napoli last night put his foot in front of the base as he's taking the throw, forcing Wong to go around it ever so slightly (which was the deciding factor in being out).

    [/QUOTE]


    Wasn't Middlebrooks making a play on the ball?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    For the purposes of the obstruction rule, no.  The throw was by him. 

     

    All the pundits, players, former players, umpires, former umpires, etc. agree they had never seen anything like it.  I don't like the reult either, but Middlebrooks ended up in no man's land.  There was nothing he could do.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     



    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not considered obstruction if a player is making a play on the ball, ala a catcher receiving a throw.  Watch Napoli last night put his foot in front of the base as he's taking the throw, forcing Wong to go around it ever so slightly (which was the deciding factor in being out).

    [/QUOTE]


    Wasn't Middlebrooks making a play on the ball?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    For the purposes of the obstruction rule, no.  The throw was by him. 

     

    All the pundits, players, former players, umpires, former umpires, etc. agree they had never seen anything like it.  I don't like the reult either, but Middlebrooks ended up in no man's land.  There was nothing he could do.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's why it wasn't obstruction - if there was nothing he could do, because the runner stepped on him the moment the ball was past him, then it was the fluid, continuous result of fielding the ball, and was therefore in the act of fielding.

    We have seen this before, and it is never called - but it's usually a play at the plate.  The scenario is the outfielder tries to throw the runner out so the catcher blocks the plate.  The ball glances off the glove, and then the catcher and runner collide.  The pitcher, backing up the play, grabs the ball and tags the runner out before he touches the plate. 

    How many times have you seen that?  Have you ever seen an umpire say that the split second after the ball glanced off the catchers glove, the catcher should have disappeared into thin air so as not to block the runner?

    A fielder is "in the act of fielding" and it is NOT obstruction, if, his block of the base, is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball.

    Separate, discontinuous movement, whose sole purpose is to block the base, is obstruction

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    We have seen this before, and it is never called - but it's usually a play at the plate.  The scenario is the outfielder tries to throw the runner out so the catcher blocks the plate.  The ball glances off the glove, and then the catcher and runner collide.  The pitcher, backing up the play, grabs the ball and tags the runner out before he touches the plate. 

    How many times have you seen that?  Have you ever seen an umpire say that the split second after the ball glanced off the catchers glove, the catcher should have disappeared into thin air so as not to block the runner?

    Excellent example that gets to the crux of the issue. It is a judgement call.  Did the catcher obstruct the runner after the ball got by him? They never call obstruction unless the catcher grabs the runner or trips him trying to get back to touch the plate.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

    [/QUOTE]

    That's amusing, but a still  picture proves  nothing. Craig was  trying to get to his  feet, as Middlebrooks was. The  replay clearly shows Craig running within the base path.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What basepath are you looking at? The one back to 2B?

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

    [/QUOTE]

    That's amusing, but a still  picture proves  nothing. Craig was  trying to get to his  feet, as Middlebrooks was. The  replay clearly shows Craig running within the base path.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What basepath are you looking at? The one back to 2B?

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a bad angle, look at the replay in slow motion he takes one step towards second because of how he came up from the slide and took off straight towards home...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BXj4M4_IYAANAeg

    [/QUOTE]

    That's amusing, but a still  picture proves  nothing. Craig was  trying to get to his  feet, as Middlebrooks was. The  replay clearly shows Craig running within the base path.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What basepath are you looking at? The one back to 2B?

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a bad angle, look at the replay in slow motion he takes one step towards second because of how he came up from the slide and took off straight towards home...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, his pop-up slide popped him back towards 2B. He did not intentionally choose to run through the infield to get  to home, but the fact is, the basepath from 3B to home was not obstructed, until he ended up about 3-4 feet from 3B at a right angle, thereby changing the angle to home.

    The runner caused a guy out of the basepath to now be in it. That's where some judgement comes in.

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     



    Joe Torre says that MLB will review this rule this off season. For me its all about INTENT. If a player is sliding into a base and a fielder trying to make a play on a errant throw, was it his intent to obstruct the runner or to try and make a play on the ball. I think clearly Middlebrooks was trying to make a play on the ball went to ground after runner went into a slide so how is Middlebrooks going to get out of the way when runner went to ground first, there was no intent to obstruct. If a fielder intentionally tries to impede the progress of the runner then it should be obstruction. This rule will get changed. What can you do rule is the rule. But then could someone explain to me why a catcher blocking the plate is not considered obstruction?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not considered obstruction if a player is making a play on the ball, ala a catcher receiving a throw.  Watch Napoli last night put his foot in front of the base as he's taking the throw, forcing Wong to go around it ever so slightly (which was the deciding factor in being out).

    [/QUOTE]


    Wasn't Middlebrooks making a play on the ball?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    For the purposes of the obstruction rule, no.  The throw was by him. 

     

    All the pundits, players, former players, umpires, former umpires, etc. agree they had never seen anything like it.  I don't like the reult either, but Middlebrooks ended up in no man's land.  There was nothing he could do.

    [/QUOTE]


    Really, the only thing he could do was trip Craig. On purpose.  And if he did, it was the smart thing to do.

     

    No throw was going to get Craig. No chance.  None.  Nada. Zip.   And while tripping him risks an obstruction call and an awarded base, every now and then you get away with one.  Like Reggie Jackson deflecting Bill Russell's DP attempt in the 1978 World Series.

     

    Or maybe you get even luckier, and Craig pulls a Miguel Tejada from the 2003 ALDS, and stops running and starts begging for the call.  Not realizing that if he stops, the act of begging for the call ruins his argument that he would have scored anyway.

     

    Catch a break like that, and Middlebrooks is a genius.

     

    But, whether he intentionally tripped Craig or not, the right call was made.  It was obstruction.   Time to move on...

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    here is what Farrell should instruct every batter to do for game 6. 

    the second you hit the ball into play, take 2 steps towards the back wall behind the umpire. 

    then run "into" the catcher who is now preventing a clear line to first base. 

    that's the same fracking thing for all of you that says the craig play was called correctly.....

     

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    it's amazing how many here can't comprehend the rules

    rule # 2

    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

     

    and now we have N C taking it to whole other level of not understanding

     

     

     

     

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    here is what Farrell should instruct every batter to do for game 6. 

    the second you hit the ball into play, take 2 steps towards the back wall behind the umpire. 

    then run "into" the catcher who is now preventing a clear line to first base. 

    that's the same fracking thing for all of you that says the craig play was called correctly.....

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    is it not  still up to the umpire as what would have happened if no obstruction

    in other words  no automatic free base

     

    time to way past time to

    get over it

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    it's amazing how many here can't comprehend the rules

    rule # 2

    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

     

    and now we have N C taking it to whole other level of not understanding

     

     

     

     

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    here is what Farrell should instruct every batter to do for game 6. 

    the second you hit the ball into play, take 2 steps towards the back wall behind the umpire. 

    then run "into" the catcher who is now preventing a clear line to first base. 

    that's the same fracking thing for all of you that says the craig play was called correctly.....

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    is it not  still up to the umpire as what would have happened if no obstruction

    in other words  no automatic free base

     

    time to way past time to

    get over it

    [/QUOTE]


    i'm still not over the phantom tag from '99, so it will be awhile before I even contemplate giving in on this blatantly terrible call.  you read the rules one way, I see them another.  Your homeboy Joe Torre even agrees...he immediately said the rule needs to be reworded / tweaked.  it was a blatant make-up call for the reversal game 1.  the umpires feel better about themselves but the Sox got screwed.  just like '99.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    And in a related issue that I don't think is important enough to start another thread over,

    What about Buck and Mc Carver not knowing the rule?  Obstruction is something that's called against the DEFENSE, while interference is something that's called against the OFFENSE.

    Their first call on the play was that interference had been called on the play at 3b, leading me to believe that the Cards had been called for interfering with the play - when actually the opposite was true.  They then started using "interference" and "obstruction" interchangably, probably until someone in the truck or the studio told them of the difference. No wonder we were confused!

    In a nutshell, if a defensive player gets in the way of a runner it's "obstruction",  but if an offensive player interferes with the fielding of a ball it's called "interference".  Is it too much to ask of two guys who've spent their lives in baseball to know this? 

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    It was a bush call.  I could argue Middlebrooks has his legs up because he's trying to allow a path for the runner. I could also argue the runner is pinning Middlebrooks to the ground. 
    The rule is not all that clear that's why people have different viewpoints and in that case you don't decide the outcome of a World Series game on an interpretation of the rule. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    The rule is not all that clear that's why people have different viewpoints and in that case you don't decide the outcome of a World Series game on an interpretation of the rule. 

    If they sent him back to 3B, or called him out for being out of the baseline, that would be an "interpretation" as well.

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

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to patrickford's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It was a bush call.  I could argue Middlebrooks has his legs up because he's trying to allow a path for the runner. I could also argue the runner is pinning Middlebrooks to the ground. 
    The rule is not all that clear that's why people have different viewpoints and in that case you don't decide the outcome of a World Series game on an interpretation of the rule. 

    [/QUOTE]

    which people would that be

    his legs being up or down has nothing to do with it

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Unlike many other rules that assess penalties when an infraction occurs, the point of the obstruction rule is not to penalize the defense.  It is to assess what would have happened if no infraction occurred.  I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that if Craig HADN'T tripped over Middlebrooks, he wouldn't have scored.  That is the crux of it.  If Craig was able to run cleanly to home, it was an easy run scored.  He couldn't, so the umpires made the call.


    It was NOT a penalty against the Sox.  I think understanding that is key to getting past this call.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share