World Series Game 6 Thread (BOS v STL, Sox lead 3-2)

[Hendersonfan]

Re: World Series Game 3 Thread (BOS v STL, tied 1-1)

I think both calls were correct. The doubke transfer call was correct. Player never had possession of the ball, therefore no out was made.

Last night as soon as this play occured, regardless of intent, Joyce pointed to the obstruction. Home plate umpire saw either Joyce or the same action of obstruction and pointed as well. They let the play continue to see if he would score or not before announcing call.

I don't think this was a make up call. I believe both were called correctly. Umpires want to get call right and I applaud them for the huddles they do to discuss what they saw.

Compare last nights play to this: batted ball is hit between first and second. Runner on first runs towards secondbase and runs into second baseman trying to make play on ball. Ball gets thru to outfield after players collide. Regardless of intent, runner is out for not allowing fielder to make play on ball.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[Super Mario]

A little retribution for the foreign substance on the glove........

I kid. But a correct call.

 

[Ryan The Orange]

I am willing to bet that nearly all knowledgeable fans (not of the Cardinals or Red Sox) agree this call was correct according to the rules.

 

[George_Calfas]

World Series Game 3 Thread (BOS v STL, tied 1-1)

I am willing to bet that nearly all knowledgeable fans (not of the Cardinals or Red Sox) agree this call was correct according to the rules.

Joe Torre agreed with the call and quoted rule 2.00

The comment was "how could you end a great game on that call". This discussion happens in basketball about foul calls in the last seconds. The rule is the rule regardless of when during the game the infraction occurred.

This will be the basball equivalent of the "Tuck Rule Game" in Foxbough.

 

[scotty216brs]

I guess I can see both sides of the coin, but that's a tough loss to swallow with that call.

Had he left his legs down, they would have been directly across the base line. Had Craig taken the proper route off of the bag, there wouldn't have been a trip.

I'm with you on this one, Adam. Craig's first move after he saw the ball get away was straight towards first base, had his initial move been towards home plate I think he could have avoided Middlebrooks. Essentially there was nothing Middlebrooks could have done to avoid that call, but a lot Craig could have done to enforce it.

 

[Erich]

Red Sox fans are going to be butt hurt over this one for a while.

 

[Brewer Andy]

Re: World Series Game 3 Thread (BOS v STL, tied 1-1)

Side note: World Series = Awesomeness

 

[MaineMule]

Rules!

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

As soon as Craig tripped, whether WM's legs went up or not, he was obstructed.

7.06 (b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no
further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such
penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

JJ pointed to the obstruction but let the play continue. The home plate umpire saw that call and also pointed to the obstruction.


So the Cardinals got this call and the Red Sox got the DP Transfer call. Even?
I also think that with the expanded replay coming, the Umps feel a little more under the gun to get the calls correct.

.....my one question, at what point is Middlebrooks "not in the act of fielding the ball?" Since the throw got away from him, does his turning, getting up and giving chase to the ball constitute fielding or not fielding the ball? He is clearly trying to get to the ball since when it got by him he did not necessarily know how far away the throw went.

The rule is completely ambiguous since Middlebrooks clearly is still attempting to field the ball

 

[Hendersonfan]

Re: World Series Game 3 Thread (BOS v STL, tied 1-1)

Didn't look to me like he was making a play on the ball. Looked like he gave up on the ball and just lay there until they got tangled. And he was trying to get up to do something. I don't mean to say he was doing nothing, I think he knew he had no chance to get the ball and was trying to stay out of the runners way.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[A_Pharis]

Middlebrooks' position was as a direct result of the play on the ball. It's a no win for those who disagree with the call, because there really is nothing Middlebrooks could have done to avoid it given Craig's path off of the bag. The rule states if they continue to lay in a way that obstructs the play then it's obstruction. The thing is, at what point does it move from a position of making the play to "continuing to lay"?
Immediately after hitting the ground, Middlebrooks actually attempts to push himself up off of the ground then throws himself down and pulls his feet from the path when he sees that Craig is attempting to run.

It's purely my opinion, but Middlebrooks was still in the direct effort of putting a play on gloving the ball.

And adding nothing to the conversation other than to say people are "butt hurt" is childish.

 

[scotty216brs]

Didn't look to me like he was making a play on the ball. Looked like he gave up on the ball and just lay there until they got tangled. And he was trying to get up to do something. I don't mean to say he was doing nothing, I think he knew he had no chance to get the ball and was trying to stay out of the runners way.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Was there anything Middlebrooks could have done to avoid getting the obstruction rule called?

 

[A_Pharis]

Didn't look to me like he was making a play on the ball. Looked like he gave up on the ball and just lay there until they got tangled. And he was trying to get up to do something. I don't mean to say he was doing nothing, I think he knew he had no chance to get the ball and was trying to stay out of the runners way.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

He fell reaching for the ball and came down over Craig's slide. Immediately after hitting the ground he makes an attempt to push himself up - only going back down once he sees Craig's direction.

Look at the animated gif a few posts before and tell me how he "gave up" if he is continuously in motion after the play?

 

[MaineMule]

Didn't look to me like he was making a play on the ball. Looked like he gave up on the ball and just lay there until they got tangled. And he was trying to get up to do something. I don't mean to say he was doing nothing, I think he knew he had no chance to get the ball and was trying to stay out of the runners way.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

.....this is all "judgment" so if there was any possibility he was attempting to get up to field the ball you can't call him for obstruction. Again, the definition of "the act of fielding the ball" makes this ambiguous.

 

[A_Pharis]

.....this is all "judgment" so if there was any possibility he was attempting to get up to field the ball you can't call him for obstruction. Again, the definition of "the act of fielding the ball" makes this ambiguous.

I agree.
To act like this was cut and dry "obstruction" is a stretch. It was a judgement call that could have been validated either way.

 

[Hendersonfan]

Re: World Series Game 3 Thread (BOS v STL, tied 1-1)

I think my message was taken wrong. I know he wanted to get the ball, but I think he knew he couldn't. I interpreted he was trying to stay out of way and not impede runner. He said when he tried to get up, runner had tripped and was on his back.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[joey12508]

Side note: World Series = Awesomeness

it was one great game.

 

[scotty216brs]

.....this is all "judgment" so if there was any possibility he was attempting to get up to field the ball you can't call him for obstruction. Again, the definition of "the act of fielding the ball" makes this ambiguous.

Yeah Middlebrooks was in the way as a result of fielding the ball, and didn't have time to move out of the way. He made a clear effort to get his legs out of the base path but because of how Craig started his run to home plate (or should I say "1st base") there is no way Middlebrooks can avoid the obstruction call.


I am not arguing that the obstruction call was wrong (as it's a judgement call) I just don't see how it could have been avoided because of where Middlebrooks ended up from fielding the throw.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

I don't think Middlebrooks could have done anything to avoid the call. And the call was correct. Shat just happens sometimes. Unfortunate timing, but this kind of minutia of rule interpretation is one of the reasons I love baseball.

 

[George_Calfas]

World Series Game 3 Thread (BOS v STL, tied 1-1)

.....this is all "judgment" so if there was any possibility he was attempting to get up to field the ball you can't call him for obstruction. Again, the definition of "the act of fielding the ball" makes this ambiguous.

You might want to listen to Joe Torre on MLB network, he breaks it down very clearly and cited Rule 2.00 to include the example that is nearly identical to this play. During the segment they explain why WM was an obstruction during the play. I have not yet heard a single baseball reporter or insider outside of Boston disagree with the implementation of the rule, please share if you know a source.....Schilling and Millar even have agreed. Does it suck that a great game ended thus way yes but this is why there are rules of the game.

The angle none of have been able to see was Joyce's POV from behind the play from the SS side.

 

[MaineMule]

......I will also add that this has been a great last 2 games. The move Farrell made that I did not like was taking Felix out of the game. He should have batted 3rd in the 7th (no outs and no one on) instead of Gomes. This would have saved the short guys and extended Felix.

Props to Craig for the double against Koji, Holliday is a beast, Sox are scared of Molina- would like to see them do something to move runners or attempt a steal, Carpenter is a no-nonsense scrapper like Pedroia.

Home plate ump DeMuth was consistently inconsistent last night. No clue for either team what was going to be a strike or not.

What drama will unfold tonight????