Author Topic: Red Sox got hosed  (Read 14862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Red Sox got hosed
« on: October 27, 2013, 04:29:13 AM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9667
  • Tommy Points: 325
First, quick background for those who didn't see the end of tonight's (Saturday's) Game 3 of the World Series:

Bottom of the ninth, 1 out, Cardinals with runners on second and third, Uehara pitching. John Jay, facing a drawn-in infield, grounds to Pedroia, who throws home in plenty of time for Salty to tag out Molina. Allen Craig makes a late break for third, Salty tries to throw him out but the throw gets past Middlebrooks and goes into foul territory down the left-field line. Middlebrooks falls while trying to snag Salty's wide throw. Craig, after sliding into third, gets up and takes off for home, but stumbles over Middlebrooks before continuing for home. Nava retrieves the ball and throws home, where Salty tags out Craig, but the third-base umpire ruled that Middlebrooks obstructed Craig, and the home-plate ump confirms the call. Craig awarded home, Cards win.

What a freakin' joke. Yes, I'm a Sox fan. Yes, I'm biased. But hear me out.

Here's what the MLB rulebook states:

Quote
The rule can be found in the Official Rules of Major League Baseball, Section 2.00, Definition of Terms:

"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.

"Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: ... 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, 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."

According to the letter of the law, the third-base ump made the correct call. Or did he?

It's interesting that the official rulebook comment on the rule gives an example that nearly matches what happened in this case—a fielder falls to the ground while making an attempt on a ball—but then goes on to say that such a fielder "very likely has obstructed the runner." The language here is not absolute; it does not say "the fielder HAS obstructed the runner." So while the rule states that a fielder who's fallen is not considered to still be "in the act of fielding," he's not necessarily obstructing the runner (only "very likely" doing so). To me, this seems to leave a bit of wiggle room that tonight's umpires either were unaware of or declined to utilize.

Anyway, I have several problems with what occurred:

1) My main argument is this: Since Middlebrooks had just tried to make a play, and had fallen during his attempt to make a play, and hadn't yet had time to get up, he shouldn't be called for obstruction ... because what else was he supposed to do?

2) Middlebrooks, in fact, TRIED to get up, but Craig pushed him back down. I don't think Craig was making a dirty play, just trying to propel himself forward while getting up after his slide into third, but he nonetheless pushed Middlebrooks down. Soooo, apparently there can be defensive obstruction but not offensive obstruction? That's cool.

3) When Craig began his move toward home, he was looking back at the ball—and not watching where he was going. That's his fault. And also leads to my next point ...

4) When Craig took off for home—apparently disoriented in his excitement—he was about two feet towards the second-base side of the third-base bag, and thus about three feet in from the foul line. ... In other words, he wasn't even within what would be considered a legitimate lane in which a baserunner is allowed to run. I mean, who, after sliding into third base, spins inward towards second base—instead of outward towards home plate—and goes significantly out of the baseline in the process? AND GETS AWAY WITH IT?!? Only Allen Craig, apparently.

Some will call this sour grapes on my part, but I think the primary issue here is fairness. Fielders are allowed to dive onto the ground in an attempt to make a play, so they SHOULD be given a legitimate opportunity to get up and get clear of any runners. The rule was followed, but it's an insufficient rule: I realize that umps can't be expected to rule on whether a fielder intended to obstruct a runner, so insofar as that goes, the rule is good, but to make NO allowance for a fielder to at least try to get out of the way is 100% unfair. According to the rule, then, and according to what the umps said, Middlebrooks would've been called for obstruction even if his legs had been flat on the ground and Craig, through his own failure to pay attention, tripped over them. How is that fair?

I'm proud of how the Sox battled tonight. Go get 'em in Game 4.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2013, 08:30:27 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Farrell really messed up in this one, and Saltalamacchia shouldn't even be playing any more because of how bad he's been.

I blame them before I worry about the controversial call.  Salty shouldn't have made the throw in the first place.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2013, 08:37:07 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
The call was legit, it's pretty definitive

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2013, 08:42:08 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
There was nothing that happened that would or could have impeded the progress of any competent runner

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2013, 08:45:00 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
It was the right call.  It sucks, but it was called correctly.

The Red Sox should never throw from home to third again.  It has lost us two games.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
There was nothing that happened that would or could have impeded the progress of any competent runner

Doesn't matter...however he fell over him, the fact is he did fall over him and the defender was in the base path with the ball having already past.

That is how the rule is interpreted according to MLB.  There's nothing to really argue.

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2013, 08:47:35 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I like the way it says obstruction is the act that obstructs ANY runner.   So basically don't blow on a Cardinal from 90 feet away. He might fall over and get an obstruction call.

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2013, 08:49:08 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
There was nothing that happened that would or could have impeded the progress of any competent runner

Doesn't matter...however he fell over him, the fact is he did fall over him and the defender was in the base path with the ball having already past.

That is how the rule is interpreted according to MLB.  There's nothing to really argue.
If it's really interpreted as broadly as that we'd see the call more often.  It's just a bad call to protect a bad base runner.

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2013, 08:51:10 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Hey I've got exclusive video of Cardinals base runners here. Quick. Somebody give them an obstruction call.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbrpqWkNqyo

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2013, 09:00:26 AM »

Offline gift

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
  • Tommy Points: 291
Your point #4 is the one the immediately bothered me. It didn't look like the runner was in the base bath. Not that I would have argued if he made it safely home, but if we're getting technical, I'd love to know if him running outside of the base path there could be called something.

Something I hadn't considered until now is the fact that the rule actual says, "likely". This confirms that it was a judgment call and not a "letter of the law" call. So the ump had discretion and chose to decide the game on that play. If we're all being honest, we probably agree that good judgment is not to allow the momentary discretion of the ump to decide a World Series game like that.

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2013, 09:08:08 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
I'm a diehard Sox fan and I've been defending that call since the wee hours.  The key point of the rule is that the runner can still be called out at home if the ump feels he would have been out without the obstruction.  You can argue semantics til you're blue in the face, but if Craig doesn't trip over Middlebrooks or a piano or whatever else was in his way his hobbling ass would have scored easily. Salty made a bad choice to throw the ball and it cost the Sox the game.  They deserved to lose.
Yup

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2013, 09:10:24 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
You don't get to run the bases like a drunken sailor, run slower than my 6 year old trying to get candy, run out of the base paths, and then get an obstruction call. Unless you're a Cardinal in the 9th inning of a World Series game last night.

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2013, 09:10:32 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Your point #4 is the one the immediately bothered me. It didn't look like the runner was in the base bath. Not that I would have argued if he made it safely home, but if we're getting technical, I'd love to know if him running outside of the base path there could be called something.

Something I hadn't considered until now is the fact that the rule actual says, "likely". This confirms that it was a judgment call and not a "letter of the law" call. So the ump had discretion and chose to decide the game on that play. If we're all being honest, we probably agree that good judgment is not to allow the momentary discretion of the ump to decide a World Series game like that.

Rule 7,08 allows for a runner to go out of the base path if he is avoiding an interference as long as he resumes a straight bath to the next base.
Yup

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2013, 09:40:22 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Salty made a bad choice to throw the ball and it cost the Sox the game.  They deserved to lose.

This.

I blame Salty for the throw and I blame Farrell for leaving Salty in the game, not to mention leaving Workman in for the 9th. 

Terrible decision-making all around.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Red Sox got hosed
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2013, 10:46:40 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
are there rules for tackling or pushing a guy down so that he can't assist with the play?