User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1139 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The devil you say.
By the way, whoever wrote this piece used the wrong term. This is a case (or in this case, a non-case) of OBSTRUCTION.
There's a little contact. It's an embarrassment, however, in every respect. The homerism of those idiot Sox announcers, the stupidity of Eddings and the crew chief. I have no dog in this hunt (indeed, I derive a slight benefit from TB losing) at all, but that was a terrible, game-changing call.
What does Pierzynski have on Eddings?
FINALLY someone writes an article about game 3 of the A's - Red Sox ALDS in 2003...
Sounds great, but that's a party that CB Bucknor, Greg Gibson, Joe West and Kerwin Danley badly need inviting to.
That's six umps total - too many for steel cage. I'm thinking the elimination chamber needs to come out for this one.
What are the odds of this happening again... and during a pennant race no less. Are those two secretly sleeping together?
"In a rundown, even though A.J. was going back to second, the rule of obstruction during a rundown is he gets his next advanced base and that's why he was rewarded third base."
Something to the effect of "...it was a bad decision by me to run on the ground ball, but there was contact in the run down, and you're not allowed to do that."
Between that and his bleached hair I wouldn't be surprised if his OBP from here on out was 1.000 as he gets a HBP in every AB he has for the rest of the year.
As Mark Belanger said about rundowns (this is a close paraphrase if not an exact quote), "Stay in as long as you can, then look for someone to run into."
In other words, "...it was a bad decision by me to run on the ground ball, but there was contact in the run down, and you're not allowed to do that." has it right as well.
I think he's probably quite clever and also cares very little about how his colleagues esteem him.
This morning on Chicago sports radio, they asked whether or not Pierzynski was future managerial material. I think he's burned too many bridges for that, but it would be interesting to see.
*That being said, I'm reluctant to give him too much credit for sucessfully escaping a rundown he had no business being in in the first place. Where did he think he going on that groundball?
The problem is that the rule book specifically says that it doesn't matter who initiates the contact. AJ, god bless his heads-up heart, threw his elbow out but it's Aybar's responsibility to get the hell out of the way. Now, I think that's pretty dumb, but it was a "by the book" call.
On the other hand, the three steps that Pierzynski took outside of the basepaths should have led to an automatic out before it even got to that point. The only reason Aybar was still in the basepath was because he was chasing Pierzynski who was running on the infield grass.
If #35 is right that it is in fact the rule, are we comfortable with allowing guys to reach out their arms and tackle opposing fielders being called obstruction. This was flat out incompetence by Eddings, and there's really no other way to explain it.
With all the billions of dollars that are involved in sports nowadays (and not just professional sports), sportsmanship seems like a sucker's game.
You have that correct in my case. But I specifically said I didn't know about this particular play. I do know the rule. Contact between baserunner and any fielder in the basepath not holding the ball is obstruction and the runner is awarded the next base. That is the rule and it doesn't matter who makes contact. In fact, you're taught, as a runner in a run down, that if you see a fielder without the ball in, or close to, the basepath you run into them and hope for the call. If, in this case, the collision was outside the basepath or if there wasn't contact, then it was a bad call. But, yes, I'm comfortable with the rule the way it's written, especially since that has been the rule about as long as the rubber has been at 60.5 feet.
Except that AJ was in no way obstructed. Any contact was incidental at most and in no way altered the play.
You've never been in any run-down drills, have you? If you had, you'd know that after one makes a throw, he follows his throw to go to the other base, in case a throw comes back there.
Do the Rays play the White Sox again this year? If so I'd expect a Rays pitcher to fire a fastball right at Pierzynski's ribcage. That would be a fine way of dealing with his "gamesmanship." I thought flopping was confined to soccer.
Not exactly:(Emphasis mine.) I don't see how Eddings could have possibly judged that AJ's progress was actually impeded.
No.
You could say the same thing about all ethics in the world.
They could also nut up and place the blame on themselves (for blowing the game with 2 outs in the 9th by allowing a single to a guy hitting .230) instead of on their opponent or on Doug Eddings. But hey -- it's always easier to blame Nader (literally or figuratively) than it is to look in the mirror and ask, "what did I do wrong to create this result?"
Yes, in fact I have done a few such drills in my time. You go to the next base but you don't do so in the basepath or, soon, the basepath would be full of fielders. You make the throw, then immediately leave the basepath, and then go to the next base. Or do you want 5 fielders, a runner and a ball all in the same space?
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.
That's correct, which is why I suggested that this might should have been a no call. Again, I haven't seen the play (yet). I was taking issue with the idea that it mattered who initiated contact. It doesn't. A saavy fielder will get the hell out of the way so that contact isn't possible because, relying on an umpire to make a quick judgement that the contact didn't impede the runner is a foolish gamble. Generally the ump will rule any contact as being obstruction. In any case, do you really want to rely on the wisdom of Eddings (or any umpire) to determine your fate?
And A.J. will probably just smile and take first in as annoying a fashion as possible, so I wouldn't hold my breath that the message will be terribly effective.
Oh, I'm sure the Rays deserve a lot of the blame for losing that game. But that call was atrocious and played a big part in the contest. It's certainly reasonable to think that the call gave the White Sox a pretty big boost.
Would that AJ explode when he's bumped.
I will add that Pierzynski made a smart choice following a very stupid one. He was at least 95% to be out after taking off on the grounder, and he earned back maybe a 10% chance that a terrible umpire would fail to enforce the rules properly and call obstruction. All things considered, Pierzynski can hardly be lauded for his headiness overall - he ran into an out, then made a desperation maneuver that gave him a small chance of surviving the play. More than anything, Pierzynski got lucky.
ALDS, Game 1.
On edit: rats. Must refresh before typing.
You probably remember this, MCoA:
Down the stretch in 2004, Boston was forced to play Mientkiewicz at second for a game due to injuries. He was actually OK there, but in the 4th inning or so he fielded a grounder and went to tag Delgado, who was running from first to second. Delgado ran him right over, knocked him flying, but Mientkiewicz held on to the ball for the out. Delgado then got drilled on the rear end with a fastball the next time up and took 1st base with no fuss.
Hell, even last year, Lowell ran right into Cano, who was in the basepath with the ball, to prevent a double play. In neither of these cases was obstruction called.
That's why you have to hit him in the head instead of the ribs.
How are those cases relevant? They both involve players holding on to the ball.
Bunyon's point is that if Aybar failed to get himself far enough away from the baseline after releasing the ball, he opened himself up the possibility that an umpire could interpret A.J.'s progress as being impeded. Which is what happened.
I was responding to the "any contact = obstruction" part of the argument.
Those couldn't be obstruction. 1) A fielder with the ball doesn't have to concede anything to a baserunner: obstruct away, initiate contact, do whatever you want to if you're trying to tag the guy out. 2) Fielders are called for obstructing runners; runners can't be called for obstructing fielders. They can be called for interference, as in those very rare calls on a take-out slide at second base that goes just six or eight miles too far.
I've bolded the important part. If you read 54, in both cases the fielder has the ball or is trying to field the ball. In either case, the fielder can be in the basepath. Running along after throwing the ball in a rundown is doing neither.
Again, if AJ reached way out and simply grazed a fielder the ump could rule he wasn't impeded. Or he could rule that he was. It's his judgment. If you're a fielder, get far enough away that it won't be an issue. But the runner should always try to induce contact with a non-ball carrying fielder in a rundown. It's the surest way out of a rundown.
How are those cases relevant? They both involve players holding on to the ball.
I was responding to the "any contact = obstruction" part of the argument.
A fielder with the ball may initiate contact to his heart's content.
Pierzynski went on to score the winning run in the White Sox 6-5 win, preventing the Rays from taking a three-game sweep.
Now the White Sox will end the year tied atop the AL Central with Minnesota & win a play-in game against the Twins in which AJ will figure in dramatically somehow.
Can't ya just see it happening just like that?
Runner in the already ungainly act of abruptly shifting it into reverse + contact with the defender + runner falling to the ground = obstruction
Good play by AJ, reasonable call by Eddings, bad job by Aybar. The Rays win this game if they had Longoria.
No offense, but this is stupid. The call was indefensible at the time and is more so after the fact. It was a bad call, simply put. The runner was never impeded, made himself further off-balance by throwing out an arm to make incidental contact, and then flopped to the ground. "Out" was the correct, reasonable call.
Blackhawk probably tells it better than I do, but arguably the most egregious was a game between the Angels and Royals in early 2005. Darin Erstad, who had a penchant for reaching via catcher's interference, swung at a pitch and knocked the glove off of John Buck's hand. The glove landed five feet out in front of home plate. Eddings didn't make the call. To quote Blackhawk:Eddings is simply incapable of making a quick decision. Those are the types of things that separate major league umps from minor league and amateur umps. His continued employment at the major league level is a disgrace.
*Just to add, the only thing worse than his call on the AJ play in 2005 was the blatant and bald faced lying that he did afterward. He got in front of the press and the world and quite simply lied about what had taken place during the game. So he's not only incompetent, he's a lying sack of crap.
I was taught the same technique. It works well at amateur levels but professional fielders generally know to get out of the way, having been taught the same tricks.
If you pay attention to umpiring Eddings continued employment is rather baffling.
I just watched the play and agree that this should have been a no-call. However, the quote of Shredder's sums it up, I think. There is a run-down, AJ and Aybar make contact, AJ falls down. Thus, obstruction. Going into with the idea that it might be fishy and knowing to look closely and then seeing it in slo-mo it's clear AJ wasn't impeded. However, it looks to me like 1) the angle Eddings had would make Aybar and AJ appear closer together than they were and 2) Eddings simply assumed the contact led to the fall (which is, IMO, what most umps will assume). I just don't think it either crossed Eddings' mind or, if it did, that it took to long too cross, that the contact may not have been significant.
Still, Aybar could have (and should have) saved himself a lot of trouble with one more step toward LF.
Ah, and there's the problem. We're talking about Willy Aybar, who I am not convinced was ever taught anything.
Did you actually watch the play? Aybar did nothing wrong there. He took three steps out to the side. Bad job by the ump, bad job by Riggans on two separate plays that would have sealed the deal in the 9th, bad job by Zobrist for two hopping the throw from left, bad job by Maddon for playing Zobrist in LF when he's spent his entire career as an infielder, and bad job by AJ for running when the ball was ahead of him (and good job for being resourceful once he was caught in the rundown), but Aybar did what every 3B in the league would have done.
It shoulda been clear by the way Pierzynski flopped that Aybar had nothing to do with it. He just tumbled backwards into the area where any mythical contact would have taken place.
Well, you could say needing several throws to tag out one of the league's slowest runners in a rundown is mishandling the situation. But that wouldn't just be on Aybar.
LOL! Aybar could have TAGGED Pierzynski. Why the heck did he even throw it??!!
No offense taken. I am stupid. Take my opinions for what they're worth in this context.
Did you actually watch the play?
I did, but only from one angle (ESPN highlight). By that view, it appears that Aybar throws the ball, takes two steps in the exact same path as AJ, then takes a leaning step to the left, during which AJ catches him with his arm. Should Aybar be within an arm's length of the runner by his third step? I say no.
It's a crappy call, but not completely indefensible. Some people are basing their judgements on what they think should be the rule, not what it actually is.
But does it really matter? On replay it's blatantly clear that AJ sticks his arm out to make the slightest bit of contact with Aybar, then flops to the ground like he's Cristiano Ronaldo in the penalty area, or as if he's been shot by snipers. It's clear from that replay that Pierzynski initiated contact then flopped in order to try to draw the call.
It's a heady play by Pierzynski but it took an ump as dumb as Doug Eddings to fall for his little stunt.
-- MWE
I have to wonder sometimes about the level of teaching that Tampa Bay provides to their young players (granting that Aybar didn't come up in their organization). The Rays' young players seem to me to make a lot of mistakes that are typical of young players in the lower level of the minors, but which should have been distilled out by the time they reach the majors.
-- MWE
Flat wrong. Watch the clip again: Aybar starts where AJP starts: right on the edge of the grass. By the time he releases the ball, Aybar's about even with the bag and then moves sharply left, ending up about 6 feet from the grass. AJP pushes off his right foot and moves laterally to make contact. Indeed, you're demanding the near-impossible from the fielder: Run hard to tag the runner, if you can't throw the ball and then put yourself far enough away that you can't be touched. That's just absurd. Aybar did everything right. The ump blew the call. Aybar NEVER came close to obstructing him.
And if he's close enough for that to happen, then he should have either ran him down and tagged him or got out of the way quicker. Based on the video, I don't know why he didn't just run him back and make the tag himself.
But Aybar made it possible for Eddings to make a bad judgment call, and Eddings came through like a champion.
Funny, that's exactly what I said about Josh Paul.
I think it might be impossible to avoid "making it possible" for an ump to make a bad judgment call.
I'm still saying it should have been no-call, but he certainly did come very close (and in fact it looks like there was the barest of contact).
And you were correct. If Paul tags him, as many catchers routinely would have, then none of the silliness follows. Eddings dunderheadness deserves the wrath of the Shredders of the world, but it doesn't mean Paul was without fault.
AJ was on his right.
If Eddings makes the right call, this was a fairly textbook rundown. Two throws. Second to third, third to second; easy tag at 2nd.
AJ didn't "turn towards him." He moved suddenly laterally to his left. He never turned. And Aybar threw the ball and veered left, which is why AJ's jerked out elbow still only barely grazed him.
Aybar didn't err, the ump did.
I have, three times.
Aybar made a bad decision by waiting too long to throw the ball - he should have thrown it a step earlier if he was going to throw it, and at that point he WOULD have had plenty of time to get out of the way. At the point at which he ACTUALLY threw the ball, his best option, as #76 points out, was to attempt to make the play himself.
-- MWE
I am tired of Albert Belle and his umpire union destroying the tenets of democracy by ensuring Eddings is still employed!
Or, if Paul tags him and the ball was foul-tipped (can't remember if it had been) then Eddings thinks it's a foul ball and AJ gets another swing.
Not to mention that on that particular play Eddings signaled 'out' as Paul was running off the field, so he certainly gave every indication that he didn't initially think the ball touched the ground. On that play, like on this current one, Eddings allowed himself to be fooled by AJ's acting.
If it had, then A.J. would have been back in the batter's box. No, it was just a ball Paul caught inches above the ground. Catchers routinely slap the tag on the guy in that situation. Paul didn't. And as for any hand signal Eddings made (which sure looked consistent with his previous strike three signals), that was a good excuse for the other 8 Angels but not particularly compelling for the guy with his back to the home plate umpire.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main