St. Louis Cardinals vs. Boston Red Sox

[max power]

What was dumber?

 

-Farrell pitching to Jay with Kozma on deck

Or

-Salty throwing to 3rd with Kozma on deck

Not absolutely sure but salty had very little chance of getting him.

[chw42]

The obstruction call in baseball is fairly stupid. If the fielder gets into a bad position from trying to catch a throw (like in the case of Middlebrooks) and he just happens to be in the basepath, it's obstruction.

 

I know it's hard to judge intent, but I really feel obstruction should be a judgment call based on the fielder's intent.

 

I remember a play at second where on an errant throw into CF, the SS would stay on top of the diving runner to prevent him from going to third base. How the hell is that not obstruction?

[LittleHurt05]

Not absolutely sure but salty had very little chance of getting him.

 

Exactly and considering what happened last game hold on to the ball and strike out that weak hitting Shortstop

[BigHurt3515]

The obstruction call in baseball is fairly stupid. If the fielder gets into a bad position from trying to catch a throw (like in the case of Middlebrooks) and he just happens to be in the basepath, it's obstruction.

 

I know it's hard to judge intent, but I really feel obstruction should be a judgment call based on the fielder's intent.

 

I remember a play at second where on an errant throw into CF, the SS would stay on top of the diving runner to prevent him from going to third base. How the hell is that not obstruction?

 

Was Middlebrooks in the basepath??

[zenryan]

funny reading all the Red Sox fans not knowing what the base path/line is. Its not from base to base but from runner to base.

[chw42]

Was Middlebrooks in the basepath??

 

I think his feet were in front of third base, which is how Craig tripped.

[IlliniKrush]

The obstruction call in baseball is fairly stupid. If the fielder gets into a bad position from trying to catch a throw (like in the case of Middlebrooks) and he just happens to be in the basepath, it's obstruction.

 

I know it's hard to judge intent, but I really feel obstruction should be a judgment call based on the fielder's intent.

 

I remember a play at second where on an errant throw into CF, the SS would stay on top of the diving runner to prevent him from going to third base. How the hell is that not obstruction?

This makes no sense. So just because you make a play on the ball, but don't actually get it, you should gain the advantage instead of the baserunner that should be able to advance? You're in an advantage/disadvantage situation there. You can't reward a defense for not making a play when the offense has every right to make one of their own. Let's make this play a little bit more drawn out. Middlebrooks jumps up for the ball, misses it, lands on Craig and is lying on top of him. It takes him 5 seconds to get untangled and is thrown out at home. Just because he's "making a play," which wasn't made, oh well, that's the breaks, you can't score? That defies all logic.

 

Anyway, the rule is what it is. You can like it or not like it, but by the the rule book and case book, it was the right call without question.

 

First of all, intent is 100% irrelevant (which, btw, it seems Middlebrooks did try to trip him and maybe thought he'd get away with it). There's no "well where should he have gone/what should he have done?" It doesn't matter, the fact is that he's lying in the base path and obstructed the path of the runner. There's a ton of things in baseball (and other sports for that matter) where intent is irrelevant. If you want an answer to "what should he have done" my answer to you would be he should have caught the ball and it wouldn't have been an issue. Or make a better throw from behind the plate.

 

If you "don't want a game decided by a call" then don't have umpires or rules. The players decided the game based on their actions. Umpires respond based on the actions of players. If you think this is controversial, you have no idea how controversial it would have been if they didn't make the obstruction call there. Making a non-call is the same as making a call there. What, it's the world series, they can only make ball/strike and easy safe/out calls now? Action happened, you rule one way or another. As if they'll just walk up to the press conference and say "well, it was obstruction, but we don't want a game decided like that, so we just let it go." They would have decided that game that way as well.

 

He was clearly in the basepath, it's not like Craig ran way out of his way or tried to do anything to just draw a call. Here's something else. Do you know that if Craig had to simply jump over him, that would have been obstruction as well? You don't even need contact for obstruction.

 

That's obstruction 100 times out of 100. It's really not even a question.

[IlliniKrush]

I wondered that as well. Who would you rather face...a decent hitter in Jay or a guy who hits like a pitcher in Kozma with a force at every base?

 

I think the answer is pretty damn simple there. Pedroia more or less bailed out Farrell, but Salty's throw screwed everything up.

 

FWIW, I thought it was obstruction the moment the play happened and I thought they'd actually call it at third base. The fact the home plate umpire had to call it later was so anti-climactic.

Joyce did call it, but it's a delayed dead ball at that point anyway.

[BigHurt3515]

I think his feet were in front of third base, which is how Craig tripped.

 

I think Craig tripped more towards Middlebrook's butt. Also when Craig starts running he is looking behind him. No matter what Middlebrooks does Craig stumbles over him

[chw42]

This makes no sense. So just because you make a play on the ball, but don't actually get it, you should gain the advantage instead of the baserunner that should be able to advance? You're in an advantage/disadvantage situation there. You can't reward a defense for not making a play when the offense has every right to make one of their own. Let's make this play a little bit more drawn out. Middlebrooks jumps up for the ball, misses it, lands on Craig and is lying on top of him. It takes him 5 seconds to get untangled and is thrown out at home. Just because he's "making a play," which wasn't made, oh well, that's the breaks, you can't score? That defies all logic.

 

Anyway, the rule is what it is. You can like it or not like it, but by the the rule book and case book, it was the right call without question.

 

First of all, intent is 100% irrelevant (which, btw, it seems Middlebrooks did try to trip him and maybe thought he'd get away with it). There's no "well where should he have gone/what should he have done?" It doesn't matter, the fact is that he's lying in the base path and obstructed the path of the runner. There's a ton of things in baseball (and other sports for that matter) where intent is irrelevant. If you want an answer to "what should he have done" my answer to you would be he should have caught the ball and it wouldn't have been an issue. Or make a better throw from behind the plate.

 

If you "don't want a game decided by a call" then don't have umpires or rules. The players decided the game based on their actions. Umpires respond based on the actions of players. If you think this is controversial, you have no idea how controversial it would have been if they didn't make the obstruction call there. Making a non-call is the same as making a call there. What, it's the world series, they can only make ball/strike and easy safe/out calls now? Action happened, you rule one way or another. As if they'll just walk up to the press conference and say "well, it was obstruction, but we don't want a game decided like that, so we just let it go." They would have decided that game that way as well.

 

He was clearly in the basepath, it's not like Craig ran way out of his way or tried to do anything to just draw a call. Here's something else. Do you know that if Craig had to simply jump over him, that would have been obstruction as well? You don't even need contact for obstruction.

 

That's obstruction 100 times out of 100. It's really not even a question.

 

Why have it be so absolute? Baseball is so full of judgment calls that something like this should apply as well.

 

As for the bolded part: that is the exact type of play I was talking about. That happened against the Sox on a SB attempt. I think O-Cab (when he was with the Twins), purposefully laid on top of the base runner at 2nd to stop him from advancing to third on a bad throw to CF. That wasn't called obstruction somehow and something like that obviously should be.

Edited October 27, 2013 by chw42

[IlliniKrush]

Why have it be so absolute? Baseball is so full of judgment calls that something like this should apply as well.

Huh

[chw42]

Huh

 

I'm in no way saying it was the wrong call according to the rule book.

 

That isn't my problem with what happened. My problem is with the rule itself, which is what I said to begin with.

 

All I'm saying is that the umpires should be able to take intent into account. If the defender was purposefully trying to interfere with the base runner, then it definitely should be obstruction. In the example you gave, if Middlebrooks was clearly not making an attempt to get off of the baserunner, then it definitely should be obstruction.

 

In the case of the call today, I feel the call should not have been based on the fact that Middlebrooks was lying in the base path, but whether or not he purposefully attempted to trip Craig on his way home.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2013 by chw42

[Jake]

I think if he left his feet on the ground, it isn't called. Craig might have been safe, too, though.

[danman31]

It's a f***ed up call because the Cardinals are the only team is baseball that gets that break. That franchise doesn't deserve the luck they get. It's sickening. I don't see how the fielder is punished for trying to make a play on the ball. Why is the runner inside the base line anyway?

 

The more I think about it, the more I just think baseball is a stupid sport. So many dumb rules like this that are weird judgment calls with good arguments going either way. Hard to defend the sport when a game is decided by that.

[Benchwarmerjim]

. Why is the runner inside the base line anyway?

 

because his foot first slide into third left him on the inside part of the base

 

 

I have no rooting interest in this series (but still watch it because I like baseball) but the right call was made here. Its a no doubter.

 

[Kyyle23]

Outside of the final call, did anyone see the pitch FX chart of Dana Demuths strike zone last night? Holy f*** was he all over the place

 

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTr...p;prevDate=1026

 

Right handers had the worst of it

[Texsox]

I know it's hard to judge intent, but I really feel obstruction should be a judgment call based on the fielder's intent.

Anytime you start making subjective calls, you open up huge problems.

[juddling]

I didn't see the play in real time just instant replay. To me it appeared that Middlebrooks dove for the ball, missed it, and when he did that instead of trying to get up he laid down and picked his legs up even higher to interfere with the runner.

 

To me, I think he would have been better off just getting on hands and knees like he was trying to get up for the ball and seeing if the runner ran into him or had to go around him etc.

 

Again...i didn't see it in real time (and have no interest in who wins) but I think it was the correct call.....props to ump(s) who got it right.

 

[IlliniKrush]

I'm in no way saying it was the wrong call according to the rule book.

 

That isn't my problem with what happened. My problem is with the rule itself, which is what I said to begin with.

 

All I'm saying is that the umpires should be able to take intent into account. If the defender was purposefully trying to interfere with the base runner, then it definitely should be obstruction. In the example you gave, if Middlebrooks was clearly not making an attempt to get off of the baserunner, then it definitely should be obstruction.

 

In the case of the call today, I feel the call should not have been based on the fact that Middlebrooks was lying in the base path, but whether or not he purposefully attempted to trip Craig on his way home.

Intent can't, and shouldn't matter. The runner has a right to an unobstructed path to home plate. I explained this in my first post, so I won't re-hash the advantage/disadvantage explanation.

 

It's a f***ed up call because the Cardinals are the only team is baseball that gets that break. That franchise doesn't deserve the luck they get. It's sickening. I don't see how the fielder is punished for trying to make a play on the ball. Why is the runner inside the base line anyway?

 

The more I think about it, the more I just think baseball is a stupid sport. So many dumb rules like this that are weird judgment calls with good arguments going either way. Hard to defend the sport when a game is decided by that.

Why should the base runner be punished for trying to run home to score a run?

 

The runner wasn't inside the base line, he was right in the base line. The white chalk isn't the base line.

 

You can't just say oh it looks like everything is an accident here, guess we'll let everything go.

 

People are just upset that the winning run wasn't scored on a routine base hit or something. It's not a big deal. If this happens in game 45 for the White Sox and it's an easy call, no one says a word. Or better yet, everyone here goes nuts if it was a Sox runner was obstructed and no call is made. Just because it's the World Series doesn't mean rules go away. The players' actions decided the game and the result of the play.

[iamshack]

Intent can't, and shouldn't matter. The runner has a right to an unobstructed path to home plate. I explained this in my first post, so I won't re-hash the advantage/disadvantage explanation.

 

 

Why should the base runner be punished for trying to run home to score a run?

 

The runner wasn't inside the base line, he was right in the base line. The white chalk isn't the base line.

 

You can't just say oh it looks like everything is an accident here, guess we'll let everything go.

 

People are just upset that the winning run wasn't scored on a routine base hit or something. It's not a big deal. If this happens in game 45 for the White Sox and it's an easy call, no one says a word. Or better yet, everyone here goes nuts if it was a Sox runner was obstructed and no call is made. Just because it's the World Series doesn't mean rules go away. The players' actions decided the game and the result of the play.

Appreciate you knowledgeable opinion here, IK.

 

Is there anything the runner could have done, other than to somehow get out of the baseline in time, to avoid that call? I guess there's just no way around the call unless you don't put yourself in the baseline there.

 

Is it not true that the defender has a right to play a ball in the baseline? If so, he just can't remain there after he's made the play on the ball?

[IlliniKrush]

Appreciate you knowledgeable opinion here, IK.

 

Is there anything the runner could have done, other than to somehow get out of the baseline in time, to avoid that call? I guess there's just no way around the call unless you don't put yourself in the baseline there.

 

Is it not true that the defender has a right to play a ball in the baseline? If so, he just can't remain there after he's made the play on the ball?

Not a ton Middlebrooks could have done after the fact, besides trying to move towards the middle of the infield quicker to get out of the way (most players don't have a great understanding of obstruction to begin with, so it's usually not the first thing on their mind). Laying there certainly wasn't the way to go. That, and then raising his legs which had nothing to do with trying to get up. Hell, this isn't the rule, but for all the people trying to say "it should be based on intent," you could make an easy argument intent was there. Legs up, then down, then oh wait he's going to run home, legs up again.

 

Defender has the right to make a play on a batted ball in the baseline, at which point it's the baserunner's right, and duty, to run outside the baseline to avoid collision and interference. And yeah, he has a right to that ball as the play is actually being made, not after the ball is in the outfield. At that point, it doesn't matter that he tried to make a play and was close. It's the same as if there was no play near him and he just sat in in the base line trying to obstruct him.

 

Everyone's just starting to rally around "well what was he supposed to do?" But again, he's obstructing a base runner, who has a right to an unobstructed path towards home. You can't just ignore that, which is what a lot of people are doing.

 

If Middlebrooks isn't in the baseline, which he had no right to be at that point, he scores easily and the game is over. He was only out because Middlebrooks obstructed him. It's pretty black and white.

[zenryan]

Is it not true that the defender has a right to play a ball in the baseline? If so, he just can't remain there after he's made the play on the ball?

 

 

fielder has the first right to make a play but he's gotta vacate the path as soon as the ball is no longer in play for him.

 

 

I remember back in HS a similar call went against me. I played third and dove for a ball in the hole with a runner on second. The runner was coming down the line and as I was getting to my feet to leave the base path, my foot slipped from under me in the dirt and I basically fell onto one knee and got ran over. I wasnt trying to obstruct and was doing everything I could to get out of the way but it didnt matter.

[StrangeSox]

because his foot first slide into third left him on the inside part of the base

 

 

I have no rooting interest in this series (but still watch it because I like baseball) but the right call was made here. Its a no doubter.

 

that's the way I see it too

[Texsox]

Umpires, and the decisions they make, are as much a part of the game as anything else.

[Leonard Zelig]

Appreciate you knowledgeable opinion here, IK.

 

Is there anything the runner could have done, other than to somehow get out of the baseline in time, to avoid that call? I guess there's just no way around the call unless you don't put yourself in the baseline there.

 

Is it not true that the defender has a right to play a ball in the baseline? If so, he just can't remain there after he's made the play on the ball?

Well, we know what AJ would have done.