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.
Page 2 of 3 pages
. He can be called for interference, and intent is necessary for that call, but not obstruction.
Peavy: ‘It’s a crying shame…
Funny how that logic works when Sam doesn't like the call.
The notion that the rulebook must be abandoned at the end of the game so "the players can decide it" is just laughable. Maybe they should stop calling balls and strikes with two outs in the ninth - it isn't fair that the ball not be put in play so the players can decide the ending.
The notion that the rulebook must be abandoned at the end of the game so "the players can decide it" is just laughable.
That would have been allowing the game to be decided by the game rather than the umpires.
Then I don't understand this - "That would have been allowing the game to be decided by the game rather than the umpires." This is very different from "the wrong interpretation of that rule was applied". Are you arguing for a no-call in the interests of the game being decided by the players, or was it a bad call on its merits?
You're telling me that instead of calling the obvious-to-everyone-watching contact, that if the play had gone on to the finish and Craig is called out at home, that would have been acceptable?
I get the ERMAHGAH OBSCRUCSHUN!! fainting spells from Cards fans. I don't really see why anyone else would line up for that train.
If this rule is softened, it all starts to come apart, and pretty soon we're watching football.
I am not sure I see any particular virtue in the game being "decided by the baseball players", if the umpire was convinced a rule had been violated.
And football fans will tell you that, considering the past 20 years of rules changes in favor of the quarterback and receivers, the NFL has started resembling MLB.
I get the ERMAHGAH OBSCRUCSHUN!! fainting spells from Cards fans. I don't really see why anyone else would line up for that train. The umpire had the discretion to call "play on" and allow the teams to either win or lose on that play (they didn't) or play into the 10th. He should have made that call rather than the "this game is over by my decree" call.
Umps should always err on the side of letting the players play
Glad to see most people here have beaten me to the same sentiment: hate the Cardinals, but the call was absolutely 100% correct and they won fair and square. The blame is really on Saltalamacchia for a bad throw and maybe somewhat on Middlebrooks for failing to field that throw (but Saltalamacchia is more to blame, it was a shite throw). The interference was crystal-clear, was immediately called at the time by Jim Joyce (and not after the fact), and the 'intent' of Middlebrooks is irrelevant.
Putting absolute limits on the umpires is making the game more umpire-centric not less.
A runner can't be called for obstruction. He can be called for interference, and intent is necessary for that call, but not obstruction. The fielder doesn't have a right to that ball, while the runner does have the right to the base path and the bag.
The rulebook allows the umpire to make that call at his discretion.
Last night, the only way Middlebrooks could have avoided the obstruction was to teleport himself. That doesn't seem like a sensible threshold to avoid being called for obstruction.
If the ump has discretion to make this call when he feels like it then it makes it more ump-centric. If he has to make a call based only on what he sees or hears, then it's less so.
this was not some fanboy but THE GUY WHO FOUNDED THE SITE whining?
Now before anyone claims again that all hell will break loose simply by adding this option, I point out that right now the umpire already has some discretion in this play. I also point out that umpires can consider intent in interference players. So, adding the ability to call the play *neutral* is not some extreme, crazy proposal. I guarantee changing the rule in this way will not cause the planets to lurch out of alignment. Civilization won't grind to a halt. What will happen is a player in Middlebrooks position won't be penalized *just because that's the way the rules are written*.
Both players shared the right to a spot last night. Middlebrooks had a right to try and make the catch. Craig had a right to reach the base. When both players have a right to a spot, the rules shouldn't favor either player.
People aren't going to like this, but if Middlebrooks intended to trip Craig, it's very similar to the "Slap" play from Yankees/Red Sox past. Craig was all sorts of going to score the winning run, and Middlebrooks did everything he could to keep it from happening, and then made the umpire make a tough call. If this was conscious on his part, I applaud the effort.
I find it disturbing that some people think that rules should only be applied some of the time, and they somehow think that this is an intelligent and thoughtful position to take. It's like mentioned above, why not have umpires simply not call balls and strikes in the final inning and "let the players decide"?
Middlebrooks — whatever his intentions were — has no right to be there, in Craig's way, without the ball.
Care to show us where it says that? Everything I read says "...the umpire shall...". The word discretion never appears.
And there's nothing wrong with that. You put the Yankees in this spot and I'm screaming incoherently as well.
Sorry Jim - I don't think I could have read a Petco length series of posts on what Middlesbrook's intention was with his legs (which probably then would have been relevant), because that is surely what would have happened under your suggestion. Where does "neutral" stop?
A theory in which a defender's right to be in a defensive position appears and disappears magically based on whether or not he makes a diving grab of an off target throw while being taken out by an incoming runner's slide. Utterly, laughably stupid.
The umpire decides based on whether he feels the defensive player intentionally or unintentionally impedes the runner and whether the defensive player had time to get out of the play or not.
I also understand that some of the Yankee faithful are playing at being "rational" in defending the call because they're Yankees fans and would argue anything to piss on the Red Sox.
Let's say a defensive player is unintentionally in the way, and can't get out of the way. Why is the solution to penalize the runner?
It's not. The runner isn't penalized for not being given bases freely.
He is called out at home when he would be safe. How is that not a penalty?
I'm not assuming counter factual "safe at home" outcomes. I'm simply watching the play as it happened. All of you arguments based on "but he would have been safe at home" is little more than variation on "what if we could kill Hitler as a baby."
I'm not assuming counter factual "safe at home" outcomes. I'm simply watching the play as it happened. All of your arguments based on "but he would have been safe at home" are little more than variation on "what if we could kill Hitler as a baby." It's pointless.
It's not pointless, it's the whole point.
The obstruction rule is vacuous if you don't play the kill Hitler as a baby game.
But awarding a guy home and the game to his team because he tripped the 3B on a takeout slide and then stumbled over him as he was trying to get up run home on the passed ball is in fact vacuous.
Watching live, I would have ruled Middlebrooks intentionally raised his legs into Craig's path.
Craig went straight to the bag and never crossed over it -- and you're calling that a trip and a takeout slide.
I tried finding it via Google, but if you search for Texas Obstruction all you get is a bunch of Ted Cruz stories.
So, Jim, you're saying you're not a clutch rational fan?
It's amazing that there would have been anything like a possible play on Craig at 3B. He's got a presumably big lead, ground ball to 2B, throw-and-tag at home plate, and THEN there's a play on him? He might be slower than 2013 Pujols at this point.
Just watched the video again. Technically Craig slides into 3B to take out Middlebrooks. Middlebrooks falls down into the basepath between 3B and 2B. He is not in the basepath between 3B and HP. Craig retreats a step back into the 2B-3B line as he gathers himself up from the slide collision. At that point, he has technically retreated from 3B and should be required to touch the bag again before advancing home, in much the same way a runner has to touch and retouch second as he's rounding or retreating on fly balls.
If you want to get really rules lawyerly about the entire affair, Craig should be out for not having retouched 3B after having retreated from the bag post collision.
We've seen rundowns go bad because a runner will juke someone, a defender throws the ball when he shouldn't, and the runner smartly runs right into that defender. The defender didn't mean to be there and may desperately want to get out of the way, but the fact that he was there without the ball means he's obstructing.
I really hate the IBB to load the bases, but it made a TON of sense in that spot.
I'm trying to remember the last time I saw an obstruction call.
It's hard to ignore a guy
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.1494 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed