2013 MLB Season Thread

[quagmire]

The runner was impeded so by rule that is obstruction. Doesn't matter if it was intentional or not.

So feet up or not he was doomed from the start because he dove for the ball......

But yeah he did trip over Middlebrook's waist. The feet had nothing to do with him tripping.

I repeat, a ridiculous ending to the game. Calling interference when Middlebrooks was on the ground due to throw. There was no way for Middlebrooks to get out of the way.

 

[MacNut]

So feet up or not he was doomed from the start because he dove for the ball......

But yeah he did trip over Middlebrook's waist. The feet had nothing to do with him tripping.

I repeat, a ridiculous ending to the game. Calling interference when Middlebrooks was on the ground due to throw. There was no way for Middlebrooks to get out of the way.

But Craig could have easily scored if he wasn't tripped up.

 

[yg17]

The MLB Network just covered the obstruction rulebook, and the example of obstruction stated in the book is nearly identical to what actually happened. Stupid rule or not (and I agree, I don't know how Middlebrooks is supposed to get out of the way that quickly), it was the correct call.

 

[quagmire]

But Craig could have easily scored if he wasn't tripped up.

No doubt about it. But, the reason why Middlebrooks was in the way was the result of a previous play. There wasn't intent or loss of situational awareness of the player to find himself interfering. There was no way to prevent this from happening.

The MLB Network just covered the obstruction rulebook, and the example of obstruction stated in the book is nearly identical to what actually happened. Stupid rule or not (and I agree, I don't know how Middlebrooks is supposed to get out of the way that quickly), it was the correct call.

No doubt in strict interpretation of the rule, it was the correct call. I still find it ridiculous.

Hopefully the rule will be changed due to the game being in the WS and was the deciding play that could have resulted in the Cards winning the series.

 

[MacNut]

No doubt about it. But, the reason why Middlebrooks was in the way was the result of a previous play. There wasn't intent or loss of situational awareness of the player to find himself interfering. There was no way to prevent this from happening.



No doubt in strict interpretation of the rule, it was the correct call. I still find it ridiculous.

Hopefully the rule will be changed due to the game being in the WS and was the deciding play that could have resulted in the Cards winning the series.

Why should the rule be changed. If the runner cannot legally advance what should the rule be?

 

[quagmire]

Why should the rule be changed. If the runner cannot legally advance what should the rule be?

Runner should have been out. The interference was due to a previous play. There was no intent or a mistake made by Middlebrooks that ended up blocking the runners path. The rule should take into account why the fielder was in the way of the runner.

Macnut, I get it. You hate the Red Sox at all costs. You want them to lose and you don't care how. But, come on you don't find it ridiculous that the rule can call that interference? There was nothing Middlebrooks could have done. There was no mistake by him. There was no intent. He was on the ground because he tried to get a bad throw from Salty. Not his fault the runner ended up tripping over him.

 

[zioxide]

Saltalamacchia is a ****ing moron for even attempting that throw to third to begin with. You would think after they blew the game on that exact same type of play 2 nights ago they wouldn't try it again tonight.

 

[MacNut]

Runner should have been out. The interference was due to a previous play. There was no intent or a mistake made by Middlebrooks that ended up blocking the runners path. The rule should take into account why the fielder was in the way of the runner.

Macnut, I get it. You hate the Red Sox at all costs. You want them to lose and you don't care how. But, come on you don't find it ridiculous that the rule can call that interference? There was nothing Middlebrooks could have done. There was no mistake by him. There was no intent. He was on the ground because he tried to get a bad throw from Salty. Not his fault the runner ended up tripping over him.

You could also blame the play on the bad throw to third that pulled Middlebrooks off the bag causing the obstruction. If there was a clean throw it would be a play at third and there would be no advancing to home and this whole play doesn't exist.

 

[quagmire]

You could also blame the play on the bad throw to third that pulled Middlebrooks off the bag causing the obstruction. If there was a clean throw it would be a play at third and there would be no advancing to home and this whole play doesn't exist.

Oh come on nut. What if it was the Yankees? Wouldn't you be screaming at the top of your lungs for the rule to be changed?

 

[yg17]

Runner should have been out. The interference was due to a previous play. There was no intent or a mistake made by Middlebrooks that ended up blocking the runners path. The rule should take into account why the fielder was in the way of the runner.

Macnut, I get it. You hate the Red Sox at all costs. You want them to lose and you don't care how. But, come on you don't find it ridiculous that the rule can call that interference? There was nothing Middlebrooks could have done. There was no mistake by him. There was no intent. He was on the ground because he tried to get a bad throw from Salty. Not his fault the runner ended up tripping over him.

The rule states that intent doesn't matter. Stupid rule or not, the right call was made and umpires can't just change rules on the fly because the rules don't make sense.

 

[63dot]

A weird ending probably sitting sour with Red Sox fans. I know the obstruction rule after seeing it but it's still leaves an awful taste. We already know Cardinals fans were pissed off about game 1 and strange substance in Boston pitcher's mitt. Nothing was proven to be in the mitt but again that left an awful taste.

Certainly to fans of the teams, game 1 and game 3 just didn't sit quite right to Stl and Boston, respectively. I don't think either game would sit well with me had I lost against an "alleged" suspicious pitcher or lost on an obstruction play.

They kind of cancel each other out.

Like I said after game 1 and do now, fans have to look to the next game. Nobody will contest game 2 which was won by St. Louis without any controversy. Now Boston has to win tomorrow to get square and I am sure they will be especially fired up and I won't be surprised if they win handily by at least a few points. Anyway, I sure hope so making this all tied up again.

 

[MacNut]

Oh come on nut. What if it was the Yankees? Wouldn't you be screaming at the top of your lungs for the rule to be changed?

Does it matter if we don't like a rule. If that was the case there would be no rules.

 

[63dot]

Does it matter if we don't like a rule. If that was the case there would be no rules.

If this happened against my team I would be all pissed off at the rule. This is normal.

What isn't normal as a rational fan is to think one's team is so great that one totally underestimates any competition. I still rightly thought the teams my team beat in NLDS and NLCS were "better" than my team but so did all the analysts. Only stupid fans thought my team would cruise by easily.

I don't mind seeing people pissed at the seemingly unintentional obstruction rule. It's counter intuitive and probably a bad rule.

 

[quagmire]

Does it matter if we don't like a rule. If that was the case there would be no rules.

Way to avoid the question......

Rules can change. Nothing is absolute.

I don't know why people are focusing on whether the call was correct or not. With that rule, it was the correct call. Not debating that. The rule needs to be changed because in that situation, IMHO he should have been out.

----------

If this happened against my team I would be all pissed off at the rule. This is normal.

What isn't normal as a rational fan is to think one's team is so great that one totally underestimates any competition. I still rightly thought the teams my team beat in NLDS and NLCS were "better" than my team but so did all the analysts. Only stupid fans thought my team would cruise by easily.

I don't mind seeing people pissed at the seemingly unintentional obstruction rule. It's counter intuitive and probably a bad rule.

I'm a Yankees fan. And I am pissed at the rule. It lacks common freaking sense.

 

[63dot]

I don't know why people are focusing on whether the call was correct or not. With that rule, it was the correct call. Not debating that. The rule needs to be changed because in that situation, IMHO he should have been out.

I agree, rule needs to change lest we end a ninth in such an ugly fashion.

If Red Sox end up winning WS, they may say this incident was the fuel needed to turn up the heat.

It's not a good idea to face a pissed off, motivated team. Personally I don't know what the Cardinals are going to do to hold back Boston. I bet Boston feels ready to take the field now and do the game 4!

Anyway, tomorrow will be extremely interesting.

 

[MacNut]

Way to avoid the question......

Rules can change. Nothing is absolute.

I don't know why people are focusing on whether the call was correct or not. With that rule, it was the correct call. Not debating that. The rule needs to be changed because in that situation, IMHO he should have been out.

----------



I'm a Yankees fan. And I am pissed at the rule. It lacks common freaking sense.

How should the rule be changed? A runner has to go around a downed fielder? Or the play is ruled dead and the runner holds his base?

 

[quagmire]

How should the rule be changed? A runner has to go around a downed fielder? Or the play is ruled dead and the runner holds his base?

Play be called dead is probably the fairest way to handle it.

 

[63dot]

Play be called dead is probably the fairest way to handle it.

I agree. Maybe it's not the perfect solution but it does seem to be the fairest way. What we saw was a travesty to common sense.

Sometimes it's OK to win ugly, as in the way Andre Agassi did in many of his later wins in the sport of tennis. People wanted him to be the flashy dude with cool hair forever but it wasn't as cool to see an older, balder Andre play a slow game of attrition and letting opponent make more mistakes. Maybe a few people felt cheated in buying expensive tickets to see him win this way but generally it was accepted, as ugly as it was. But in tonight's baseball game, what a stupid and ugly way to win and piss off the opponent. It's not simply ugly, but infuriating and makes most wonder who the hell kept that rule intact like that.

Macnut, how can you sit with that rule still on the books? Unintentional obstruction?

 

[quagmire]

I agree. Maybe it's not the perfect solution but it does seem to be the fairest way. What we saw was a travesty to common sense.

Yeah. Unless there was intent or a mistake made by the fielder, the play should be dead. There was no way for Middlebrooks to get out of the way.

 

[63dot]

Yeah. Unless there was intent or a mistake made by the fielder, the play should be dead. There was no way for Middlebrooks to get out of the way.

Not getting out of the way makes sense from the position he was in. Now if you are Tim Conway and you get in the way, then that's intentional.

 

[quagmire]

Not getting out of the way makes sense from the position he was in. Now if you are Tim Conway and you get in the way, then that's intentional.

Or ARod. He probably would have tried to grab Craig's leg.

 

[nospleen]

Or ARod. He probably would have tried to grab Craig's leg.

He doesn't grab, he slaps, haha.

 

[JohnLT13]

But Craig could have easily scored if he wasn't tripped up.

I don't think so, he was clearly injured from the play at third. He used Middlebooks as a crutch after he was up because of the injury thus holding Middlebrooks down. He stumbled a few times getting down the line and had trouble sliding into home.

 

[zioxide]

The only thing that really pisses me off about the call is the whole reason Craig tripped over Middlebrooks is because when Craig gets up to run home his first few steps are towards 2nd, then he realizes hes running the wrong way, reverses, and then trips over Middlebrooks. Craig put himself out of position and took himself off the baseline. What's Middlebrooks supposed to do? If Craig gets up and runs straight home instead of starting out towards second base, Middlebrooks isn't in his way and he wouldn't have tripped over anything. Of course if that happens he probably beats the throw home anyways, but still, I would have rather seen the game decided like that by the players on the field than the umpires.


Doesn't change the fact that Saltalamacchia was a moron for trying to throw the guy out at 3rd anyways. Sox butchered that 9th inning on both sides of the ball.

 

[63dot]

The only thing that really pisses me off about the call is the whole reason Craig tripped over Middlebrooks is because when Craig gets up to run home his first few steps are towards 2nd, then he realizes hes running the wrong way, reverses, and then trips over Middlebrooks. Craig put himself out of position and took himself off the baseline. What's Middlebrooks supposed to do? If Craig gets up and runs straight home instead of starting out towards second base, Middlebrooks isn't in his way and he wouldn't have tripped over anything. Of course if that happens he probably beats the throw home anyways, but still, I would have rather seen the game decided like that by the players on the field than the umpires.

Yes, that!

A few more calls like that in a WS then we will have ump hating fans on the scale of Japan. Anyway, pretty scary stuff when you see the regularly polite Japanese take out all of society's frustration on baseball umps.