OT... What a bizarre ending to a WS game...

[cto]

I am happy Cards won.. but on an obstruction call? How bizarre. I have been watching MLB for more than 60 years. Never saw a game end like this.

 

[mountaincuse]

Haven't had a chance to see a replay yet (will on the 12 sc).

But, anytime the Sox lose is fine by me

 

[SUintheVille]

Yes I am very happy Cards won too. It was bizarre indeed. What a way to win or lose. Had Craig not tripped he would have been safe which was a key to the call they said. Cards blew enough chances in that game. Almost did it again in the 9th.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Bizarre yes, controversial no.

ESPN with their "controversial call ends game 3" headline is just plain wrong.

It was a blatantly correct call. A tough one, but obvious.

 

[victor]

I am happy Cards won.. but on an obstruction call? How bizarre. I have been watching MLB for more than 60 years. Never saw a game end like this.

Catcher should have never thrown the ball to third.

 

[SUMBA]

Bizarre yes, controversial no.

ESPN with their "controversial call ends game 3" headline is just plain wrong.

It was a blatantly correct call. A tough one, but obvious.

The rule seemed to be written for that exact play:

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered in the act of fielding a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 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: If 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.

Oddly, it was 28 years to the day after umpire Don Denkinger blew a call at first base that cost the Cardinals the 1985 World Series against the Royals.

 

[cusetown1]

Poor ms

 

[upperdeck]

The rule seemed to be written for that exact play:

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered in the act of fielding a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 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: If 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.

Oddly, it was 28 years to the day after umpire Don Denkinger blew a call at first base that cost the Cardinals the 1985 World Series against the Royals.

by rule you could argue contact. the runner can also not be the one to initiate contact to cause obstruction.. how far away does the fielder have to be away ? there is no set rule. players get tangled all the time with no calls of obstruction. you could also argue that the fielder was not in the baseline and that the runner created a new baseline that was not a direct route since he ran from the 2nd base side of 3rd base and that cause the contact. he certainly got up and never touched 3rd when he stepped back off the bag..

 

[Knicks411]

he certainly got up and never touched 3rd when he stepped back off the bag..

This is something I noticed that I haven't seen discussed much.

But it has to be obstruction.

But man, is Allen Craig slow? Especially with the foot injury.

 

[upperdeck]

sure call the obstruction.. he gets third base..

 

[Knicks411]

sure call the obstruction.. he gets third base..

He already had third base, and he scores if he doesn't get tripped. It's a bad way to end it, but I dont see any other call to make

 

[Tobias Funke]

by rule you could argue contact. the runner can also not be the one to initiate contact to cause obstruction.. how far away does the fielder have to be away ? there is no set rule. players get tangled all the time with no calls of obstruction. you could also argue that the fielder was not in the baseline and that the runner created a new baseline that was not a direct route since he ran from the 2nd base side of 3rd base and that cause the contact. he certainly got up and never touched 3rd when he stepped back off the bag..

 

[SUMBA]

by rule you could argue contact. the runner can also not be the one to initiate contact to cause obstruction.. how far away does the fielder have to be away ? there is no set rule. players get tangled all the time with no calls of obstruction. you could also argue that the fielder was not in the baseline and that the runner created a new baseline that was not a direct route since he ran from the 2nd base side of 3rd base and that cause the contact. he certainly got up and never touched 3rd when he stepped back off the bag..

by rule you could argue contact. the runner can also not be the one to initiate contact to cause obstruction.. how far away does the fielder have to be away ? there is no set rule. players get tangled all the time with no calls of obstruction. you could also argue that the fielder was not in the baseline and that the runner created a new baseline that was not a direct route since he ran from the 2nd base side of 3rd base and that cause the contact. he certainly got up and never touched 3rd when he stepped back off the bag..

The runner establishes his own baseline unless he is trying to avoid being tagged out.

"Don't forget," Hirschbeck said, "the runner establishes his own baseline. If he's on second on a base hit and rounds third wide, that baseline is from where he is, way outside the line, back to third and to home plate, it's almost a triangle. So the runner establishes his own baseline."

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Bizarre yes, controversial no.

ESPN with their "controversial call ends game 3" headline is just plain wrong.

It was a blatantly correct call. A tough one, but obvious.

Easy call.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JJReddawg]

View attachment 5452

 

[JJReddawg]

 

[Cowtown]

With this just after the call that brought an end to the Pats-Jets game last week, there must be a lot of sniveling going on in Chowdertown.

 

[Cheriehoop]

The video originally posted was changed?

 

[Crusty]

Yes I am very happy Cards won too. It was bizarre indeed. What a way to win or lose. Had Craig not tripped he would have been safe which was a key to the call they said. Cards blew enough chances in that game. Almost did it again in the 9th.

Actually, the call was made the minute he tripped so the fact he was out at the plate was irrelevant. They made the right call according to the rule.

 

[upperdeck]

once the player establishes third base he then creates his baseline to home. by stepping back to 2nd he now needs to retouch third.. the replay shows the 3rd basemen out of the intended baseline. the runner cant redirect to a new line that puts a fielder in his way. you see it all the time in run downs with runners trying to reach out and touch fielders and change their baselines, contact does not mean obstruction.. how far away does ,middlebrook have to be.. what he fell 10 ft away and craig runs back and trip over him..

 

[longtimefan]

once the player establishes third base he then creates his baseline to home. by stepping back to 2nd he now needs to retouch third.. the replay shows the 3rd basemen out of the intended baseline. the runner cant redirect to a new line that puts a fielder in his way. you see it all the time in run downs with runners trying to reach out and touch fielders and change their baselines, contact does not mean obstruction.. how far away does ,middlebrook have to be.. what he fell 10 ft away and craig runs back and trip over him..

If Middlebrooks did not raise his legs (twice?), he would have had a better chance of avoiding the call.

 

[Cowtown]

Actually, the call was made the minute he tripped so the fact he was out at the plate was irrelevant. They made the right call according to the rule.

Yes, I saw him make the call right when it happened, as did the home plate ump, which is why he pointed immediately to the third base ump after the play at the plate. Yes, it's an unusual ending, but I'm glad the umps had the jam to make the right call.

 

[upperdeck]

the home plate ump made the wrong call.. he ruled the runner safe, he should have ruled the runner out then the obstruction call gets ruled.. what if the 3rd base ump makes the call that the runner gets awarded 3rd not home..

 

[Cowtown]

the home plate ump made the wrong call.. he ruled the runner safe, he should have ruled the runner out then the obstruction call gets ruled.. what if the 3rd base ump makes the call that the runner gets awarded 3rd not home..

I think that's "picking fly out of pepper." The right call was made regardless of the details, and I'll bet that's what most sports fans want.

 

[Crusty]

the home plate ump made the wrong call.. he ruled the runner safe, he should have ruled the runner out then the obstruction call gets ruled.. what if the 3rd base ump makes the call that the runner gets awarded 3rd not home..

The home plate ump immediately pointed to the third base ump and ruled safe. Why would the runner be awarded a base he has already achieved?