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

[CusefanATL]

so if a player is stealing slides into 2nd and slides past the bag and then realizes the ball was hit and caught he needs to go back to first does he just skip touching the bag because he didn't mean to go past it?

the obstruction rule was written to stop fielders from hindering runners. it is ignored dozens of times a year on plays around the bases. players are often given time to untangle. Im a mets fan why do i care who wins. And I think he intended to slow the runner down then realized he shouldnt but it was too late.

catchers cant block the plate either but they do thats never called..

the only reason the runner got tied up with the fielder was because he took a strange route to home. as the umpires said whether he got up or not they were going to call obstruction.

you quite clearly dont know the rules.

You can block if you are in control of the ball or in the process of catching it. Otherwise a simple tag at 2nd would be considered blocking the base.

again, youre totally grasping at straws. this was a very easy call. and the only people that disagree are SOME red sox fans.

and if you think he tried to slow the runner down... then its clear as day. what are you arguing?

 

[mountaincuse]

Talked with a few people who are umps and they feel the correct call was made.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Talked with a few people who are umps and they feel the correct call was made.

Considering the rule, I don't disagree. I just think it's a stupid rule.

 

[upperdeck]

you quite clearly dont know the rules.

You can block if you are in control of the ball or in the process of catching it. Otherwise a simple tag at 2nd would be considered blocking the base.

again, youre totally grasping at straws. this was a very easy call. and the only people that disagree are SOME red sox fans.

and if you think he tried to slow the runner down... then its clear as day. what are you arguing?

i believe i have argued that there was more to the play than simply arguing obstruction.. the fact he never touched home, the player never touched 3rd, the runner left his base path putting a fielder into his way.

there is a difference in blocking the base path with the ball making a tag aand blocking the plate with your leg while reaching out to catch a throw..

I would say once you go down past AAA umps you are starting to get into a realm of people who dont really know the rules. AA and A level umps do HS games the pay is poor and they are Avg at best and below Avg most of the time at knowing the rules.

 

[Madbiker]

Actually, if you listened to the bit about Joe Torre, the rule will be looked at and will likely be changed because most sports fans (read everyone but Yankee fans - haters gonna hate) realized it's a stupid rule if there is no intent. I think it could be argued Middlebrooks intended to help out with his feet, but the rule doesn't care, as it stands right now.

Putting the umps in the mind reading business to determine "intent" would be a huge mistake and create more problems. If that call went against St. Louis we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of Sox fans. It was the right call...you're just looking at it through a partisan fan's eyes...which is OK. And I have no rooting interest in the Series for either team.

 

[cuseinseattle]

I'm a huge Red Sox fan, just as much as I love Syracuse Basketball. So I will admit to being partial. What I will say about the call is that is was technically correct but I believe the rule should be changed. He could have gone down the line and avoided Middlebrooks entirely. He did not. It reminds me a lot of the block/charge call on Triche in the national semifinal this year. That rule was revisited after the season and I think this rule will be as well. It is pretty clear that many people who play baseball don't even understand it. Unfortunately these things have to happen sometimes for the rules to change. Sadly it always seems to happen to my teams.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Putting the umps in the mind reading business to determine "intent" would be a huge mistake and create more problems. If that call went against St. Louis we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of Sox fans. It was the right call...you're just looking at it through a partisan fan's eyes...which is OK. And I have no rooting interest in the Series for either team.

This is really stupid. Of course you wouldn't hear a peep out of them THE CALL WOULD HAVE GONE THERE WAY. Every single fan base

And it's barely 50 degrees , so why is Buchholz' hair all wet?

Answer: it's not wet from sweat, it's full of gel. And if anyone's noticed besides me, he's gone with his pitching hand from his hair to his glove several times already tonight. Can anyone guess what else is in his glove?

My guess is that no one wants to open that Pandora's Box. For if someone went after a pitcher on the other team, then their own pitchers will also be caught up in the same scrutiny. And in the wake of the steroid scandals, no one really wants to go there. :noidea:

When it is cold outside you don't want something on your hands that makes them slippery, you want to be able to grip the ball better. Putting gel on the ball makes no sense. If balls are doctored they move in weird ways and it's very obvious. It is not something done by every player and no one wants to talk about.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Putting the umps in the mind reading business to determine "intent" would be a huge mistake and create more problems. If that call went against St. Louis we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of Sox fans. It was the right call...you're just looking at it through a partisan fan's eyes...which is OK. And I have no rooting interest in the Series for either team.

Good point, I mean it's not like there are any other calls in sports that our judgement calls.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Boston's catcher threw the ball into left field with the game winning run on 3rd in the bottom of the 9th. Instead of crying about the umps, Boston fans should focus on that.

I don't think anyone would dispute that. I'm a Red Sox fan and believe that call was correct by the letter of the law but the rule shouldn't be that way. A person should be required to make a reasonable effort to avoid the contact which I don't think happened. I also think he was going in a direction outside base path. Tour arguement reminds me of my Michigan friend who told me I had no right to complain about the block/charge call on MCW that was his 4th foul. He told me that Syracuse played so bad in the first half and made countless mistakes that they didn't deserve to win. I don't dispute that we didn't play well all I'm saying is THAT WAS A FRIGGIN CHARGE AND IT CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME. Similarly all I am saying is that HE FRIGGIN MADE NO EFFORT TO GO OVER THE TOP OF MIDDLEBROOKS HE JUST FELL ON TOP OF HIM BECAUSE HE ONLY HAS ONE GOOD LEG. There I'm done and feel better.

 

[Cowtown]

When it is cold outside you don't want something on your hands that makes them slippery, you want to be able to grip the ball better. Putting gel on the ball makes no sense. If balls are doctored they move in weird ways and it's very obvious. It is not something done by every player and no one wants to talk about.

Look, if Bucky suddenly changes his "mode of comportment" and shows up on a chilly day with no hair gel (for the reason you mentioned), it becomes even more obvious what he was doing all the rest of the season. So he has to stay with it, regardless of the weather on any given day.

And yes, I do think many others are doing it. He's not being, and he makes very good sense, IMHO.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/zaun-101-the-art-of-cheating/

 

[OrangeDW]

Actually, if you listened to the bit about Joe Torre, the rule will be looked at and will likely be changed because most sports fans (read everyone but Yankee fans - haters gonna hate) realized it's a stupid rule if there is no intent. I think it could be argued Middlebrooks intended to help out with his feet, but the rule doesn't care, as it stands right now.

I dislike both teams equally, as well as the Yankees.

When you throw the ball into left field, the runner on third is going to score.

It was ridiculous of him to be chucking the ball around like that, when he really had little shot to get him at third.

The Red Sox didnt luck out by the runner tripping over there player. That's really what this is. If the umps didnt call it, the Red Sox would've been extremely lucky to still be playing, given what their catcher just did.

Whining on and on about not getting lucky, is a bit much. It's not like they got robbed out of something they earned(like a home run being called foul, etc)

 

[obliterata]

No offense intended, but if that last part is correct I think you're being a bit disingenuous asking the question about whether he was headed to second and should have to retouch third because clearly the baserunner never started back towards second no matter where his body might have been positioned.

Let me explain my second point a little more.

Obviously he wasn't trying to go to second but he did go in that general direction after touching third and did indeed wind up in the base path between second and third. My second point was - if the answer to my first question was he didn't have to retouch third - is he out of the base path? By "out of the base path" I mean the base path between third and home since he already reached third.

If he was he should've been called out, if he wasn't then it's obstruction.

Two related points:

1) If a runner is allowed to head towards second and/or be in the base path between second and third AFTER touching third AND if he doesn't have to retouch third before heading home, I wonder how far he is permitted to go and what path he can take to home plate. Can a runner go five feet towards second and then go straight home? Can he go ten feet towards second and then straight home? Twenty feet? All the way back to second and then straight home? Can he go back thirty feet, run to within ten feet of third and then curve towards home? I know this is crazy talk but the point is, how far can a runner go back and run home legally? I'd say the Cardinal runner was at least 2 feet towards second when he went home.

2) I'll tell you what I'd like to see just for curiosity sake: A gigantic picture of a baseball diamond with the path of every runner in baseball history who has ever reached third base and went home plotted on it. There's a decent chance the Cardinal runner's path would stick out like a sore thumb.

No offense taken.

 

[dasher]

Look, if Bucky suddenly changes his "mode of comportment" and shows up on a chilly day with no hair gel (for the reason you mentioned), it becomes even more obvious what he was doing all the rest of the season. So he has to stay with it, regardless of the weather on any given day.

And yes, I do think many others are doing it. He's not being, and he makes very good sense, IMHO.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/zaun-101-the-art-of-cheating/

again, foolish. A major league hitter knows right away if a ball is messed with. Not one hitter all year has questioned Lester of Buch. Not one.

 

[Cowtown]

again, foolish. A major league hitter knows right away if a ball is messed with. Not one hitter all year has questioned Lester of Buch. Not one.

Sorry dash, but nothing I said was "foolish." What's "foolish" is suggesting that because no one's questioned that no one's putting anything on the ball. Anyone who thinks that is living in the first chapter of Alice in Wonderland. And if you watched the video, you'll see that Zaun addresses why no one is questioning the practice.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I dislike both teams equally, as well as the Yankees.

When you throw the ball into left field, the runner on third is going to score.

It was ridiculous of him to be chucking the ball around like that, when he really had little shot to get him at third.

The Red Sox didnt luck out by the runner tripping over there player. That's really what this is. If the umps didnt call it, the Red Sox would've been extremely lucky to still be playing, given what their catcher just did.

Whining on and on about not getting lucky, is a bit much. It's not like they got robbed out of something they earned(like a home run being called foul, etc)

While the throw was not a smart play, if Middlebrooks comes off the base just a little bit, he's got the throw easily. I don't think it would have been an out, but we wouldn't have had all of these discussions about the obstruction. Seems like many of the Sox players have been glued to the bases instead of coming off and securing the ball (read Salty in the first throw away game). Luckily it looks like they will overcome all these mistakes and win anyway because they are the superior team, but it could have been much easier if one or two guys gives up their position guarding the base and just catches the freakin' ball.

 

[dasher]

Sorry dash, but nothing I said was "foolish." What's "foolish" is suggesting that because no one's questioned that no one's putting anything on the ball. Anyone who thinks that is living in the first chapter of Alice in Wonderland. And if you watched the video, you'll see that Zaun addresses why no one is questioning the practice.

a major league hitter knows when a ball is messed with. It breaks down for no reason. Pitchers use stuff to get a better grip. Just like hitters.