Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Peavy: ‘It’s a crying shame… it’s a joke’ - Boston Red Sox Blog - ESPN Boston

I learned a long time ago that life isn’t always fair. Knowing that life isn’t always fair doesn’t mean it’s easy to accept when you are faced with its unfairness.

I’ve watched the game-ending play multiple times. I’ve heard the explanations. If the call is truly a correct interpretation of the rule, I guess fans have no other real choice than to accept it. I don’t see, however, how MLB doesn’t rewrite this rule in the off season because, even as Joe Torre admitted during a post game interview, the end result wasn’t necessarily fair. If as fans we can’t count on the league doing its utmost to make sure the game outcomes are as fair as possible, it’s tough to remain emotionally invested in a game.

“You could kind of tell when he (DeMuth) was pointing to third what he was calling. I hope he rests well tonight in his hotel room knowing what he did. That is a joke, an absolute joke. I’m sorry. Go to talk to him and ask him if he feels good and right about his call to end a World Series game on a diving play… it’s just beyond me.”

Peavy, who gave up two runs and four hits in the first inning but battled back to pitch three scoreless innings following that, vowed, “We’ll bounce back. We’ll be ready to go tomorrow. It’s just too bad.

“You have two great, great baseball teams playing out there, and you had such a great game tonight, that was a phenomenal game tonight, all the way down to the final play. Guys just absolutely pouring their heart out, and for it to end like that… I don’t know how anybody can say, ‘Yeah, that’s how it should have ended.’ Go find me one person that’s OK with that call, other than Cardinals fans, because they won the game.”

Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:08 AM | 293 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cardinals, red sox, world series

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:18 AM (#4585250)
You could kind of tell when he (DeMuth) was pointing to third what he was calling. I hope Salty rests well tonight in his hotel room knowing what he did. That is a joke, an absolute joke. I’m sorry. Go to talk to him and ask him if he feels good and right about his throw to end a World Series game… it’s just beyond me.”


Fixed that for Peavy.
   2. cardsfanboy Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:31 AM (#4585256)
Go find me one person that’s OK with that call, other than Cardinals fans, because they won the game.

I've talked with probably a dozen Red Sox fans between here and on facebook, and almost all of them are "Okay" with how it ended. As post 1 alludes to, the call wasn't the problem with that play.

It's fairly simple to ask. If Middlebrooks isn't in Craig's way, does he score? Not how he got in Craig's way. Not whether he did anything intentional, it's this simple, if Middlebrooks isn't on the ground in front of Craig when Craig starts running, does he score? I think the answer is fairly obviously yes.
   3. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4585257)
I’ve watched the game-ending play multiple times. I’ve heard the explanations. If the call is truly a correct interpretation of the rule, I guess fans have no other real choice than to accept it. I don’t see, however, how MLB doesn’t rewrite this rule in the off season because, even as Joe Torre admitted during a post game interview, the end result wasn’t necessarily fair. If as fans we can’t count on the league doing its utmost to make sure the game outcomes are as fair as possible, it’s tough to remain emotionally invested in a game.


How is it fair to the Cardinals if their runner can't make it home because there's a fielder lying in the basepaths? The obstruction rule is a completely logical rule that was applied properly here, as #1 implies it's the fault of Saltalamacchia for making such a bad throw that caused Middlebrooks to end up on the ground in front of Craig.
   4. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:39 AM (#4585261)
I've talked with probably a dozen Red Sox fans between here and on facebook, and almost all of them are "Okay" with how it ended.

Yeah, the only people who I've seen express displeasure with the call are Red Sox fans (not all of them, most have been sane).
   5. Sunday silence Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:39 AM (#4585262)
They threw the ball away, and somehow it's not fair that Craig should score on a play like that.

Got it.
   6. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4585263)
How is it fair to the Cardinals if their runner can't make it home because there's a fielder lying in the basepaths?

Because it would've been good for the Red Sox!
   7. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:44 AM (#4585267)
They threw the ball away, and somehow it's not fair that Craig should score on a play like that.

Got it.


I think it's possible that some fans are upset that Craig may have sought out WMB to get a call. Craig is like three feet inside the line when he trips over Will. It's also completely possible that Will (rather than lifting his legs to clear the chalk) is lifting his legs to impede the runner because....why not?

Also lost in this is the horrible zone the ump called last night.
   8. cardsfanboy Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:47 AM (#4585268)
I think anyone who cares what Middlebrooks does on the ground is missing the point of the rule. It doesn't matter what Middlebrooks does is is trying to do.

As to Craig intentionally trying for the call? I don't see it, when you slide with your right foot like he did, and the play happens, you use your lead foot and the bag as a starting block, so you are going to be on the inside of the 'base line' at that point in time, since your first step is going to be with your left foot.
   9. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:50 AM (#4585271)
The one thing that seems to be tripping people up the most, having read about a thousand reactions to this play/call: the third-to-home baseline is not the foul/chalk line, nor is it the dirt path. It is simply the straight line between the runner and home. There are some caveats, of course; a runner can't just veer wildly off course towards the pitcher's mound or something and then switch directions to home and that becomes the baseline. But you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to come up with a scenario where the route that Allen Craig took towards home was some egregious gaming of the system. He stood up and took a straight path to home from where he regained his balance, a path that happened to be directly blocked by Middlebrooks' prone body. I've also seen it suggested that Craig had a clear path available to him if he moved towards the foul line before breaking to home, which, so ####### what? That's not his responsibility. Assuming he doesn't trip over Middlebrooks - and you have to be nuts if you think Craig planned that, not that it matters - taking a straight path instead of moving towards the foul line, especially on a gimpy foot that he had just slid hard into third on and is probably utter hell to change directions on, saves him precious seconds heading towards freaking home plate in the bottom of the 9th to score the winning run in a World Series game.
   10. Sunday silence Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:54 AM (#4585273)
They've been playing this game over a hundred years and you still see something new almost every day.

Baseball has it's flaws, the games are a little slow to develop, the umps are not perfect, But it does have it's own quaint charms.
   11. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:55 AM (#4585275)
I think anyone who cares what Middlebrooks does on the ground is missing the point of the rule. It doesn't matter what Middlebrooks does is is trying to do.


Of course it does. The umps aren't robots. Will made the call easier for the umps.
   12. BDC Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:56 AM (#4585276)
If Craig had time to think on that play, he's a mental marvel. He just up and ran.
   13. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 27, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4585278)
Your tears taste so salty (but not Salty) and delicious.
   14. Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:01 AM (#4585279)
As I said, I understand the interpretation of the call. To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?
   15. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:05 AM (#4585281)
To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?

Yes.
   16. cardsfanboy Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:07 AM (#4585282)
What other call could have been made that would have been fair? You call him out it rewards the obstruction. You put him back on third, you reward the obstruction.

Without the obstruction Craig would have been safe at home. That is the only call to make there.
   17. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:07 AM (#4585283)
If Craig had time to think on that play, he's a mental marvel. He just up and ran.


1. People please. Have you EVER played sports (You don't even lift bro!!)...there is plenty of time there to take a dive, I've seen it and done it in soccer all the time. You don't even have to look. You're an athlete playing a game you've played your whole life, you know there's a guy there sprawled out in front of you.

2. 1 is irrelevant. I just watched the slow-mo gif about 20 times. There's no intent on Craig's part. You can tell by the play at the plate, he's sacrificing every part of his body to score, and by the look on his face, he thinks he's out. A guy trying to buy a call would have spung up (or at least sat up or rolled over since he probably couldn't have sprung up at that point) and screamed. Craig thinks he's out.
   18. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4585285)
As I said, I understand the interpretation of the call. To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?


Are you asking whether the call should have been made, or whether the rule should exist as it does? For the former: yes, absolutely. Imagine if this were an NFL game (yes I know, perish the thought but run with me here) in the last minute and Peyton Manning throws a home run touchdown pass, only his receiver is tripped up by a clumsy defender who A) did not mean to make contact, but B) was not making a play for the ball, thus making it a clear case of pass interference. You think anybody is gonna freak out about that call other than a select few who are really hung up on "letting the players decide the outcome" or whatever? Likewise if a player received a hard foul on a breakaway game-winning dunk in basketball - or maybe more appropriately, a goaltending call on a breakaway layup where the player slaps the ball away after it's angled off the glass.

For the latter: it's a fair question, and I wouldn't be shocked to see some clarification or minor revisions of the rule in the offseason.
   19. SoSH U at work Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4585286)
As I said, I understand the interpretation of the call. To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?


What I don't want is umpires determining that the rules are different at differing points in the game.

I wondered if it was obstruction before the play at the plate. When I saw the replay, I knew it was a good call.

   20. Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:13 AM (#4585289)
Are you asking whether the call should have been made, or whether the rule should exist as it does?
I am asking whether the rule should exist. I understand why it was called.
   21. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:14 AM (#4585290)
As I said, I understand the interpretation of the call. To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?


If obstruction isn't called, the Cardinals fail to score, and the Red Sox go on to win the game then the game is still decided by incidental contact. There WAS incidental contact and once that happened (and resulted in Craig not making it to home safely when he otherwise would have) then somebody was getting hosed by that contact. Should it have been the team that was trying to run the bases normally or the team that threw the ball away and had a fielder lying in the basepath?
   22. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:16 AM (#4585292)
even as Joe Torre admitted during a post game interview, the end result wasn’t necessarily fair.


I was at a party last night, so I missed a lot. But what is this referring to?
   23. Flynn Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:16 AM (#4585293)
Perhaps this is the benefit of being asleep in Europe during the game, but my anger is 75% at Saltalamacchia for making a bad play (even if the throw is on line I think Craig is safe) and 25% WMB for not coming off the bag to try and get the bad throw. It was obstruction, Craig scores if there isn't any and that's that.
   24. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:18 AM (#4585294)
Perhaps this is the benefit of being asleep in Europe during the game, but my anger is 75% at Saltalamacchia for making a bad play (even if the throw is on line I think Craig is safe) and 25% WMB for not coming off the bag to try and get the bad throw. It was obstruction, Craig scores if there isn't any and that's that.


yup.
   25. BDC Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4585296)
there is plenty of time there to take a dive, I've seen it and done it in soccer all the time

Well, in the slow-mo .gif, it looks like there's time :) I dunno. If you take a dive, you lie on the ground, and roll around pointing at the mean person who did it to you; you don't dive and then count on the dive factoring into the rest of the play that you then leap up and try to make like a madman. If Craig had time to take a dive, he also had time to hurdle the fielder. It looks much more to me like he was hauling ### from the start and just tripped. But as you say, it's irrelevant and we quite agree about the outcome.
   26. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4585297)
On a side note, watching Craig run home on that ankle makes me grimace every time. He does not look happy...
   27. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4585298)
The most hilarious thing about all that is the manager and half the losing team arguing with 4 umps, while a victory scrum is going on behind them!

edit: It's also funny that the Sox are constructed in such a way that I should not be surprised to see Salty sit the rest of the series, Drew sit, and Napoli play 3B tonight. Or at least tomorrow should the Sox lose tonight.
   28. AROM Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4585299)
Middlebrooks may not have tried to impede Craig, but he did. If this rule does not exist, you would see fielders pushing the envelope trying to impede runners.
   29. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4585300)
Yeah, the only people who I've seen express displeasure with the call are Red Sox fans (not all of them, most have been sane).


Many Red Sox fans are used to preferential treatment by the league so it's almost reflexive for them to object. This was an obvious call.
   30. DKDC Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4585301)
I am asking whether the rule should exist. I understand why it was called.


Absolutely.

The obstruction rule is critical to enforcing the runners right to the basepath. The fielders have tens of thousands of square feet that they can freely roam, but the rules require them to temporarily cede a small portion of that space to the runner because it is so important to the game.

The fact that obstruction is so rarely called is a testament to how effective the rule is. It's a very strict rule and every baseball player has had this concept hammered into their head since little league: "get the hell out of the way".

If this rule is softened, it all starts to come apart, and pretty soon we're watching football.
   31. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4585303)
To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?

Do we really want games decided by fielders purposely tripping runners?
   32. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:32 AM (#4585306)
As I said, I understand the interpretation of the call. To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?

Well, do we really want to write it into the rule book that the runner has some sort of moral obligation to sidestep a non-fielder who's blocking a straight path to the next base, even if it delays the runner just enough to cause him to be thrown out? Do we really want to reward the next Middlebrooks and punish the next Craig?

Of course it wasn't Middlebrooks' fault that he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that just falls into the "Life is unfair" category, and changing the rule would only make matters worse the next time it happens.
   33. Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:35 AM (#4585310)
even as Joe Torre admitted during a post game interview, the end result wasn’t necessarily fair.

I was at a party last night, so I missed a lot. But what is this referring to?
It was a comment Torre made talking after the postgame press conference on Baseball Tonight. He was chatting with Reynolds, Millar, and Greg Amsinger. I haven't been able to find it on tape. It might pop up again on one of the replays of Baseball Tonight.

Do we really want games decided by fielders purposely tripping runners?
There should be some discretion on the part of the umps.
   34. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:38 AM (#4585314)
Exactly #32. What is Will supposed to do? Well, what is Craig supposed to do? When two guys have no choice in the matter, the runner gets the call. This really isn't even a close call on the matter. Is it fair when a runner gets pegged with a line-drive? No, but he's out (unless the ball passed a fielder trying to make a play on it).
   35. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4585315)
there is plenty of time there to take a dive, I've seen it and done it in soccer all the time.


Yeah, but the soccer players have had years of practice for that sort of thing.
I don't remember the spring training drills in baseball that involved diving...

There should be some discretion on the part of the umps.

And there is, because obstruction was called in the 2003 ALDS, and they did NOT award the base to the runner.
   36. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4585316)
It seemed to me that if Middlebrooks just lay flat on the ground, everything would have been fine for the Red Sox. Craig would have hopped over Middlebrooks and been thrown out at the plate. But it looked like Middlebrooks kicked his feet up in the air as Craig was hopping over him and did indeed obstruct him.

So I think the umpires did the right thing.
   37. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:44 AM (#4585319)
Do we really want games decided by fielders purposely tripping runners?


There should be some discretion on the part of the umps.

Does that mean that if Middlebrooks had had a halo surrounding his cap that proved his lack of intent, then Craig would have been obliged to change his path and sidestep around him? That makes no sense.

And the umpires already have discretion---discretion to rule whether or not the runner's path was actually impeded. What they don't have, and shouldn't have, is any discretion to rule whether or not the impeding was intentional, since that's utterly irrelevant. The umpires aren't mindreaders.
   38. ecwcat Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4585320)
Jim Furtado is coming off like a close-minded crybaby in this thread.

Love his pathetic emotional and fairness appeals:

"I don’t see, however, how MLB doesn’t rewrite this rule in the off season because, even as Joe Torre admitted during a post game interview, the end result wasn’t necessarily fair."

You know Red Sox fan Furtado is grasping at straws when he's citing Joe Torre as an authority figure.

"To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?"

Contact is contact. Runner was blocked and tripped up. Anyway, there was nothing controversial about the play.

"I am asking whether the rule should exist."

Happens all the time in amateur schoolyards, parks, or day camp games that have no umps. There's a valid reason why it's on the books because before the rules guys would get physical to prevent advancing bases. But you know that.

"There should be some discretion on the part of the umps."

There was. It didn't side with your favorite team. Boo-hoo. Maybe you and Joe Buck can sob over it at the Holiday Inn Express.

Really coming off bad on this one, Furtado. But we shouldn't expect differently. I wonder if your bias comes out in your so-called logical statistical analyses.
   39. joeysdadjoe Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4585321)
It seemed to me that if Middlebrooks just lay flat on the ground, everything would have been fine for the Red Sox. Craig would have hopped over Middlebrooks and been thrown out at the plate. But it looked like Middlebrooks kicked his feet up in the air as Craig was hopping over him and did indeed obstruct him.

Still obstruction. If WMB is in the way. Craig would have been safe. Took him a long time to untangle.
   40. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 27, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4585322)
There should be some discretion on the part of the umps.


And there is, because obstruction was called in the 2003 ALDS, and they did NOT award the base to the runner.

But that was only because Tejada stopped running. Here's what the umpire who made that call said after the game:

"Had Tejada been thrown out by a step or two, I would have called time and protected him and scored the run. ...

The play never continued, because he stopped."
   41. Bob Tufts Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4585324)
When runners get in a rundown, they are told to try to attempt to make any incidental contact possible.

I am fine with the call, it is just truly unfortunate that it ended the game. But I guess a call by Jim Joyce that is heartily supported by Dana DeMuth must be correct.

Happy 28th anniversary of the 1985 Don Denkinger call, St. Louis!
   42. Matt Welch Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:22 AM (#4585330)
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.
   43. Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:47 AM (#4585343)
Nice, ecwcat (or is it Kevin, Rob Base, or some other malcontent).

It seemed to me that if Middlebrooks just lay flat on the ground, everything would have been fine for the Red Sox. Craig would have hopped over Middlebrooks and been thrown out at the plate. But it looked like Middlebrooks kicked his feet up in the air as Craig was hopping over him and did indeed obstruct him.
Actually the umpire said Middlebrooks' feet had nothing to do with the call.
   44. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4585344)
Actually the umpire said Middlebrooks' feet had nothing to do with the call.


From what I can see, I agree with that. Middlebrooks' only foul in that particular play (post-throw-from-home only - one can easily second-guess that he should have gloved the throw) was existing. I think that had Craig hopped an inert Middlebrooks and been thrown out at home, it would have been called anyway.
   45. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4585347)
I guess a call by Jim Joyce that is heartily supported by Dana DeMuth must be correct.

Best fans in baseball.
   46. J. Sosa Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4585351)
Peavy, could, you know, maybe try to pitch well in a post season/play in game. I know that is out there, but he could try it.
   47. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: October 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4585353)
I've said it in other threads but I think if Middlebrooks lays prone on the ground the call doesn't get made. They may say that it didn't matter because technically, they are right, but we see it all the time from officials in all sports, in that situation officials don't want to make a call unless they absolutely positively have to. WMB made it impossible for them not to with his flopping around.

The feet being up or down doesn't matter from a rules perspective but I bet it would have from the rules being enforced. Just watch on any "Hail Mary" passes today in the NFL if pass interference gets called or watch the mayhem allowed in the penalty box by defenders in the ManCity-Chelsea game, officials don't want to make those calls.
   48. Bug Selig Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4585354)
It's fairly simple to ask. If Middlebrooks isn't in Craig's way, does he score?


You don't understand - the Red Sox are ALWAYS the aggrieved party. Always.
   49. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4585355)
Disagree a billion per cent with Jose in 47.
   50. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4585356)
Jose - you may be right, but his natural instincts are to try to get up off the ground, as would anyone's be in that situation.

And I think the call gets made no matter whether WMB is just laying there or not. The second Craig had to make any special effort to get to home because of WMB being on the ground, obstruction gets called, and I don't think there's any question that Jim Joyce has the guts to make that call.
   51. Shibal Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4585357)
Jim Furtado is coming off like a close-minded crybaby in this thread.


How do you think you came off in this whining rant?
   52. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4585359)
but his natural instincts are to try to get up off the ground


If Middlebrooks was trying to get up, that was the most unnatural natural way to do it I've ever seen.
   53. J. Sosa Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4585361)
I agree with Jose a billion percent in 47. The umps whatever their faults, did not want to make that call. I think there is a non zero chance the call isn't made if Middlebrooks doesn't bring up his legs. The call still should have been made regardless, but I think there is a decent chance they let it go if Middlebrooks stays flat (maybe not fifty fifty but a decent chance).

As an aside, I think Middlebrooks was a much bigger part of the loss than he's generally being given credit for. I guess he can get in line with Salty and Farrell, but he hurt them badly that game.

edit to add: I rarely agree with P.P. but he's right. Is Middlebrooks a dolphin?
   54. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4585362)
To my point, do we really want games decided by incidental contact?


The contact wasn't incidental. Craig tripped over Middlebrooks to the extent he had to push himself up off the ground. That trip could well have made the difference between being safe and out, if the interference had not been called.
   55. Bug Selig Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4585363)
Actually the umpire said Middlebrooks' feet had nothing to do with the call.


I think that's true retrospectively, but watching live (on TV, but at full speed, the first time) the flutter kicks are what drew my attention to the tangle. I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate that had Joyce's attention not been drawn to the post-slide interaction, he'd have not even felt that there was a call to make.

At full speed, the raised feet made it look to me (incorrectly, it turns out - but again, I'm talking reaction as it happened) like WMD intentionally tripped him. I understand and agree that it doesn't change the rule book interpretation of the play, but I think it affected how the umps saw the play.
   56. PreservedFish Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4585365)
I am truly neutral and I think it was absolutely the correct call. More than that, I was telling obstruction at the tv screen before the third base ump has even motioned at all.
   57. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4585366)
It was a comment Torre made talking after the postgame press conference on Baseball Tonight. He was chatting with Reynolds, Millar, and Greg Amsinger. I haven't been able to find it on tape. It might pop up again on one of the replays of Baseball Tonight.


They were talking about the play, Torre said that after Middlebrook fell down there was really nothing he could have done in time to avoid the interference call, so it was unfair in a "life is unfair" sense, not "the rules are unfair."
   58. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4585367)
Having watched the video, the Cards got the benefit of an umpire wanting to get in out of the cold. Of course Cards fans won't think so, because Cards fans are about as entitled as any fans in baseball. But that's was a crap call. That was all natural action of the game. No intentional obstruction occurred. No need to make that call.
   59. Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4585370)
   60. Sean Forman Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4585371)
Jim,

I think you are way off base here. It was obstruction plain and simple. Imagine the play if Middlebrooks is not in the way. Craig almost certainly scores easily. That is the fairest outcome giving him home. Now if he had been out by 45 feet then sure call him out, but that wasn't the case. The defense put him in that position, so he has to pay that price. Also you know the history of the game, do you want a return to the 1890's when runners were really obstructed.

edit:
#56, I agree completely. The second I saw Craig trip over WMB I looked to the ump to see if obstruction was called (which it was). 100% no doubt in my mind the right call. Speaking a long-time red sox fan.
   61. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4585372)
No intentional obstruction occurred. No need to make that call.

Except that as Cardinals fans and Red Sox fans and Yankees fans and probably even soccer fans have all noted, "intentional" has nothing to do with the rule.
   62. PreservedFish Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4585376)
Frankly I am surprised that Sox fans here are trying to sell this call as unfair or incorrect. It's kind of pathetic. I can only guess at the way it's being discussed on sites not for the thinking fan.
   63. Jim Furtado Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4585378)
Sean, I'm not disagreeing about how the umpire called the play last night. I agree they called the rule *as written*. I believe, however, the rule should be amended so that obstruction isn't automatic when, in a similar play, a runner isn't intentionally impeded.
   64. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4585379)
Frankly I am surprised that Sox fans here are trying to sell this call as unfair or incorrect. It's kind of pathetic.


It seems to me that most of the Sox fans here aren't trying to sell it. Just Furtado and maybe one or two others.

EDIT: And one Braves fan.
   65. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4585380)
Except that as Cardinals fans and Red Sox fans and Yankees fans and probably even soccer fans have all noted, "intentional" has nothing to do with the rule.


The call is entirely umpire's discretion. The ump has every right to look at the action of that play and rule "play on." That would have been the correct call. No action in that play was outside of the game of baseball. No centaur ran through a fielder trying to slap the ball away. The ball was hit, fielded, thrown away, picked up, thrown back in. That's baseball. It was a bad call. We talk for days on end about how the umpires should not put themselves into the game story unless absolutely necessary. This was an unnecessary call. If it goes the other way Cards fans whine about it for an inning until they bat in the bottom of the 10th.
   66. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4585382)
I believe, however, the rule should be amended so that obstruction isn't automatic when, in a similar play, a runner isn't intentionally impeded.


Disagree. That opens up a whole can of worms. Then the umps will be put into the unwelcome position of having to decide on intent.

The baselines are there for more than one reason. The runner is obliged to run on them. It's the fielder's job to get out of the way.
   67. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4585384)
The call is entirely umpire's discretion. The ump has every right to look at the action of that play and rule "play on." That would have been the correct call. No action in that play was outside of the game of baseball. No centaur ran through a fielder trying to slap the ball away. The ball was hit, fielded, thrown away, picked up, thrown back in. That's baseball. It was a bad call. We talk for days on end about how the umpires should not put themselves into the game story unless absolutely necessary. This was an unnecessary call. If it goes the other way Cards fans whine about it for an inning until they bat in the bottom of the 10th.


This isn't some back alley stickball game. The umpires called it by the rules. I get that your raging hateboner for the Cardinals precludes you from not being totally ridiculous here, but you're gonna have to do better than that. Though I guess it's good to know that things explicitly outlined in the MLB rulebook and understood by A) every umpire involved in the game, B) virtually every sportswriter who has discussed this, and C) virtually every fan except Sons of Sam Horn posters and you are not "baseball."
   68. spike Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4585385)
It's the right call, and even if it isn't Peavy comes off looking like a b#### for publicly crying about. In any event it's not a question of fairness, or intent or anything. Middlebrooks was in the way, not fielding the ball, and plausibly changed the outcome of the play. QED obstruction, no matter if he meant to be there or not.

Shoot pool, Fast Eddie.
   69. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4585386)
The baselines are there for more than one reason. The runner is obliged to run on them. It's the fielder's job to get out of the way.
The foul line is not the baseline. The baseline is a direct line from where the runner is to the next base.
   70. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4585387)
It's the right call, and even if it isn't Peavy comes off looking like a b#### for public crying about it in any event.


Let it go. Peavy's wrong but it's the post-season and he's reacting to the heat of the moment.
   71. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4585388)
even as Joe Torre admitted during a post game interview, the end result wasn’t necessarily fair.


Thanks for the link, Jim, but I dispute your summary of it. I think #57 is spot-on here.
   72. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4585389)
This isn't some back alley stickball game. The umpires called it by the rules. I get that your raging hateboner for the Cardinals precludes you from not being totally ridiculous here, but you're gonna have to do better than that.


Oh, look. A Cards fan has his ##### in knots. Shocking.

Here's a clue, dillweed. I hate both of these teams.

It was a bad call.
   73. Publius Publicola Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4585391)
The baseline is a direct line from where the runner is to the next base.


You cannot leave the baseline to avoid a tag. You will be called out.

The first and third lines are also the baselines. Discretion is given when a runner is running hard and rounds wide but the point remains.
   74. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4585392)
Oh, look. A Cards fan has his ##### in knots. Shocking.


My team is up 2-1 in the World Series. My ##### - whatever that word is - remains decidedly unknotted.
   75. Dale Sams Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4585394)
edit to add: I rarely agree with P.P. but he's right. Is Middlebrooks a dolphin?


The slow-mo gif makes it look like he's doing push-ups.

   76. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4585395)
The foul line is not the baseline. The baseline is a direct line from where the runner is to the next base.


Which in this case is where Craig ended up after obstructing Middlebrooks' attempt to field the throw from Saltallamachia.
   77. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4585396)
My team is up 2-1 in the World Series.


And they won one of those two by their own merits! You must be so proud.
   78. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4585397)
Which in this case is where Craig ended up after obstructing Middlebrooks' attempt to field the throw from Saltallamachia.


Concern troll is concerned!
   79. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4585398)
And they won one of those two by their own merits! You must be so proud.


Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
   80. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4585399)
Concern troll is concerned!


Look, if people are going to get their panties twisted all up in their vajayjays over obstruction, then by all means, let's call all of the possible obstructions on that play, right?
   81. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4585400)
Salty made the throw that lost the game. It may have been technically decided on an umpire call, but if you make that throw in that situation, 99% of baserunners (non-Molina ones, of course) score the winning run.
   82. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4585401)
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.


That is 100% true.
   83. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4585405)
Look, if people are going to get their panties twisted all up in their vajayjays over obstruction, then by all means, let's call all of the possible obstructions on that play, right?


Sure, just as soon as you point out to me in the MLB rulebook where it is decreed that Allen Craig's entanglement with Middlebrooks could in any way be construed as illegal on his part.
   84. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4585409)
Sure, just as soon as you point out to me in the MLB rulebook where it is decreed that Allen Craig's entanglement with Middlebrooks could in any way be construed as illegal on his part.


Look. You're a Cards fan. I get it. All things must go your way or they are wrong. I'm familiar with this trope. But there's no reason for that play to not be called obstruction, and if the 3B ump had not called it MLB and Torre would be waving the same rulebook around defending the lack of a call, because at the point the call is made, they all circle the wagons.

Show me a single part of that sequence of plays that was outside of the action of the game of baseball.
   85. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4585411)
But there's no reason for that play to not be called obstruction


I'm assuming this was inadvertent. Either way, nice dodge.

Show me a single part of that sequence of plays that was outside of the action of the game of baseball.


You're right - all of it happened during the "action of the game of baseball." Including the part where the MLB umpire correctly applied an MLB rule from the MLB rulebook. Textbook!
   86. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4585413)
You're right - all of it happened during the "action of the game of baseball." Including the part where the MLB umpire correctly applied an MLB rule from the MLB rulebook. Textbook!


For the record, this is why normal people hate Cardinals fans. You get the gift of an umpire call awarding you a WS game and you still come across as entitled, whiny ##########. Amazing.
   87. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4585417)
Yeah, you've got nothing.
   88. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4585419)
The ump has every right to look at the action of that play and rule "play on." That would have been the correct call.

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?

You're loony.

You think that a non-call would have been better than a by-the-books call at that point?

Loony tunes.

   89. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4585420)
I think Rickey!'s upset that Middlebrooks didn't make a better effort of obstruction like his hero McCann.

"If you're gonna obstruct, at least stand up and do it right!"
   90. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4585426)
Rickey, of the hundred or so opinions I've read/heard from non-Sox fans, you're the only one who disagrees with the call.
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4585427)

I would rather see the Red Sox win, but this obviously was the correct call and I see no need to change to rule. Stay the hell out of the way, or risk the consequences. It's not complicated.

That said, I will continue to call bulshit on this nonsense every time it comes up:

"Happy 28th anniversary of the 1985 Don Denkinger call, St. Louis!"

The call last night ENDED THE GAME (and it has the bonus pts of being correct).

The 1985 call (which was wrong) merely allowed the potential tying run to reach first base leading off the 9th with the Cardinals ahead by a run. There was plenty of opportunity for the Cardinals to win that game (and the Series, there or in Game 7). Any comparison (even if one somehow thinks the call last night was wrong) of these calls is ridiculous.

   92. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4585428)
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?


Yes. That would have been allowing the game to be decided by the game rather than the umpires. I get that folks here have rooting interests or just like to have games decided by literature rather than plays on the field, but I'm not down with either of those. If the call goes the other way all that happens is they play on. There's no reason the call shouldn't have gone the other way. It's all umpire's discretion. The 3B ump made the wrong judgement and ended the game on his decision rather than letting the players decide the game. That's bad.
   93. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4585430)
Craig Calcaterra wrote a great article on the play and the difference between baseball and other sports, where they sometimes at the end of games "just let them play", which seems to be at least in part Sam's point (I think? Who the hell knows though...).
   94. cardsfanboy Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4585431)
Look, if people are going to get their panties twisted all up in their vajayjays over obstruction, then by all means, let's call all of the possible obstructions on that play, right?


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.
   95. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4585432)
The 3B ump made the wrong judgement and ended the game on his decision rather than letting the players decide the game. That's bad.


The players did decide the game.
Salty decided to make a shitty throw.
Middlebrooks decided to make a shitty attempt to catch the throw.
Middlebrooks decided to flop around like a grounded dolphin and obstruct Craig's attempt to run home.

It's not like the umpire call was ball/strike determination, or a fair/foul ruling. He simply pointed at the obstruction that EVERYONE WHO WAS WATCHING COULD SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES, and that's that.
   96. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4585433)
I think Rickey!'s upset that Middlebrooks didn't make a better effort of obstruction like his hero McCann.

"If you're gonna obstruct, at least stand up and do it right!"


Second, on the question of appeals to authority, an appeal to authority is only invalid if the authority in question is invalid. The fallacy, properly understood, in an appeal to invalid authority. In this case, MLB's internal team who review on field fracases such as this are *the defining authority* on the matter. While we sit around watching the MLB.tv feed and pulling out an f-bomb here and a vague point to a knee there, they have the full audio (no TV bleeps), the team reports, the umpire reports, and their own standards for judgement and punishment. And with all of that extra information and with their official guidelines, they ruled to suspend Carlos Gomez and Reed Johnson. Gomez for starting the #### in the first place, Johnson for bolting out of the dugout like a madman and taking random swings at Brewers.


Funny how that logic works when Sam doesn't like the call.
   97. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4585434)
The 3B ump made the wrong judgement and ended the game on his decision rather than letting the players decide the game. That's bad.


So you are saying that if it had been a 9-0 game and the same play happens, it's OK to call obstruction, but not if it decides the game?
   98. Matt Welch Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4585440)
The slow-mo gif makes it look like he's doing push-ups.

Maybe he was trying to do the Puig-worm?
   99. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:22 PM (#4585442)
I think Rickey should be banned for use of the word "vajajyjay."
   100. spike Posted: October 27, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4585447)
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.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRangers' Yu Darvish Pushes for a Six-Man Pitching Rotation - NYTimes.com
(16 - 5:24am, Jul 23)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(321 - 4:25am, Jul 23)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2720 - 4:13am, Jul 23)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(825 - 3:57am, Jul 23)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(42 - 3:25am, Jul 23)
Last: bjhanke

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(46 - 3:02am, Jul 23)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogCowboy Monkey Rodeo taking the Minors by storm
(9 - 2:27am, Jul 23)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-22-14
(53 - 2:05am, Jul 23)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogTrading for Price would be right move for Cubs | FOX Sports
(73 - 1:52am, Jul 23)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogChase Headley traded to New York Yankees from San Diego Padres - ESPN New York
(90 - 1:33am, Jul 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(28 - 1:29am, Jul 23)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogMLB: Astros telecasts catching on to advanced metrics
(12 - 12:24am, Jul 23)
Last: jwb

NewsblogFSAZ: D-backs cut off McCarthy’s cutter controversy
(26 - 11:08pm, Jul 22)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogThree Moves The Red Sox Should Make - Tony Massarotti - Boston.com
(35 - 10:24pm, Jul 22)
Last: Select Storage Device

NewsblogTony Oliva turns 76; Gardenhire: 'He should be in hall of fame'
(46 - 9:10pm, Jul 22)
Last: DavidFoss

Page rendered in 0.7233 seconds
52 querie(s) executed