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

[Noexcuse]

Obstruction plays happen all the time in the World Series

 

[upperdeck]

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?

because if you watch the play the runner actually steps back towards 2nd.. by rule he needs to retouch 3rd to advance.. the obstruction award is only for the next base..

and you see obstruction calls ignored every week on plays at 2nd during steals. i dont recall more than 1-2 a SS or 2nd basemen getting ruled for not letting a runner advance to 3rd.

yeah there is a rule.. and yeah there was contact. what if the contact knocks middlebrook out and he is lieing there and the runner trips over him. you going to rule an unconscious player obstructed someone. the rule is designed to protect the runner not reward the runner for making running mistakes.

 

[OrangeDW]

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.

 

[pfister1]

because if you watch the play the runner actually steps back towards 2nd.. by rule he needs to retouch 3rd to advance.. the obstruction award is only for the next base..

and you see obstruction calls ignored every week on plays at 2nd during steals. i dont recall more than 1-2 a SS or 2nd basemen getting ruled for not letting a runner advance to 3rd.

yeah there is a rule.. and yeah there was contact. what if the contact knocks middlebrook out and he is lieing there and the runner trips over him. you going to rule an unconscious player obstructed someone. the rule is designed to protect the runner not reward the runner for making running mistakes.

Yes. The unconscious runner had obstructed the runner in your scenario. It has nothing to do with the fielder's intent, so whether he is conscious or unconscious really doesn't matter. It is about whether he has a right to occupy the spot on the field. He only has the right to occupy the spot on the field in the base runners path if he is making a play on the ball. If he does not have the right to occupy the spot then the question becomes did he interfere with the runners opportunity to advance to the next base.

And as for the retouching second base...I think that is pretty foolish. I am pretty sure that the runner would have had to have an intent to retreat to second base for what you are suggesting to even be considered much less be considered on a play like this where it is only after watching super slow mo 15x that it even occurs to someone that his body may have technically headed towards second before going to the plate.

 

[upperdeck]

whether the runner meant to run towards 2nd or not he did.. he got up to a step towards 2nd,. that changes his base bath and puts the fielder into play. and the umps can over rule any rule they want if they feel its not in the spirit of the game.. what if Criag takes off towards the mound and runs into the pitcher? is that obstruction?

 

[Pat Kelly]

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.

Well he's benched for tonight... I'm a huge Sox fan... unbelievably frustrating finish, can't wait for game 4 tonight

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

sure call the obstruction.. he gets third base"

"(a) When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal. If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out.

 

[rrlbees]

whether the runner meant to run towards 2nd or not he did.. he got up to a step towards 2nd,. that changes his base bath and puts the fielder into play. and the umps can over rule any rule they want if they feel its not in the spirit of the game.. what if Criag takes off towards the mound and runs into the pitcher? is that obstruction?

He never stepped towards second. He stepped backwards with his left foot. When the 3rd baseman lifted his legs and made the obstruction more clear, that is when the straight line to home plate starts. From the collision to home plate. So the runner never stared to go back towards second nor did he ever run out of the baseline. The absolute proper call was made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madbiker]

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..

Middlebrook raised his legs up twice. The second time clearly impeded the runner (and IMO was intentional) and made the call easy for the umpire. It was obvious to most viewers with no particular rooting interest. I love how Sox fans and Boston media are calling for the rule to be changed today since it adversely affected their team. They can now add this play to their persecution complex and moan about it for the next 50 years.

 

[realorange]

Bottom line is there doesn't have to be intent, just any obstruction. Nothing else really matters, so the ump is correct in his call.
As for intentional leg raising, I don't think so. If you look at the last part of the video you'll see him trying to push himself up with his arms. If you want to snap up as fast as possible you'll likely kick up your legs. You wouldn't just do a pushup.

 

[mountaincuse]

what if Criag takes off towards the mound and runs into the pitcher? is that obstruction?

No, that's running out of the base path.

He started running toward home and the correct call was made. The base path is not a line on the ground two inches wide. Deal with it and move on.

 

[CaliCuse]

Only bizzare, I never said it was the wrong call but face it thats a rare series of events even for the Bosox. It could only be more fun if one of them tripped over their beards.

 

[Cowtown]

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?

 

[obliterata]

It was a bizarre play, that's for sure. It's the first time I've ever seen a player touch a base and then wind up in the preceding base path - I'm sure it's happened before but I've never seen it. His body was a good two feet off third base on the second base side. I'd like to know what the rules of baseball are regarding this, if there's a rule/rules about it at all. Does he have to retouch third base? That question is more important than the obstruction call.

If he does he should be ruled out. If he doesn't my follow up question is: since the runner was not in the base path between third and home AND the fielder was not obstructing the runner between those two bases, is it still considered obstruction? If it isn't they should've just played on. Of course, there's no question the fielder obstructed the runner on the latter's path home.

Oh, and I'm not a Red Sox fan, I'm a fan of getting things right and being fair.

 

[pfister1]

It was a bizarre play, that's for sure. It's the first time I've ever seen a player touch a base and then wind up in the preceding base path - I'm sure it's happened before but I've never seen it. His body was a good two feet off third base on the second base side. I'd like to know what the rules of baseball are regarding this, if there's a rule/rules about it at all. Does he have to retouch third base? That question is more important than the obstruction call.

If he does he should be ruled out. If he doesn't my follow up question is: since the runner was not in the base path between third and home AND the fielder was not obstructing the runner between those two bases, is it still considered obstruction? If it isn't they should've just played on. Of course, there's no question the fielder obstructed the runner on the latter's path home.

Oh, and I'm not a Red Sox fan, I'm a fan of getting things right and being fair.

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.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Middlebrook raised his legs up twice. The second time clearly impeded the runner (and IMO was intentional) and made the call easy for the umpire. It was obvious to most viewers with no particular rooting interest. I love how Sox fans and Boston media are calling for the rule to be changed today since it adversely affected their team. They can now add this play to their persecution complex and moan about it for the next 50 years.

Oh stop it. The St. Louis player tripped over Middlebrook's hip. Not his legs. It looked obvious, but that guy can't run to save his life right now. He shouldn't have even been in the game for Pete's sake.

And the rule will be changed to allow an ump to determine intent. As noted above, a runner shouldn't be rewarded just because a guy in lying flat on his face unconscious.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

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.

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.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

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?

Okay, so you know I'm a huge Sox fan and I was asking the same question. He did this far too often to be overlooked, although I guess he could have been sweating.

Either way, it's not like he had great stuff that was moving all over the place. He got lucky more often than not.

 

[dasher]

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?

So silly. A big league hitter knows when a ball is doctored immediately. Not one card even asked to have the ball looked at.

 

[CusefanATL]

because if you watch the play the runner actually steps back towards 2nd.. by rule he needs to retouch 3rd to advance.. the obstruction award is only for the next base..

and you see obstruction calls ignored every week on plays at 2nd during steals. i dont recall more than 1-2 a SS or 2nd basemen getting ruled for not letting a runner advance to 3rd.

yeah there is a rule.. and yeah there was contact. what if the contact knocks middlebrook out and he is lieing there and the runner trips over him. you going to rule an unconscious player obstructed someone. the rule is designed to protect the runner not reward the runner for making running mistakes.

you're really grasping at straws. you have to be a sox fan - because it was a clear call. And his "step back towards 2nd" is a joke.

Imagine if they didn't call the obstruction and then the sox won. The cardinals would have with out a doubt suffered injustice. The sox, in this case, did not. They only suffered a bizarre ending. Case closed.

 

[CusefanATL]

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 hate the yankees... but if they didnt allow craig to score, that would have been awful IMO. He would have clearly scored if he didnt trip over middlebrooks. Intent shouldnt matter - otherwise it will lead to a lot of "flopping" in baseball. That would be insane.

 

[Cowtown]

Okay, so you know I'm a huge Sox fan and I was asking the same question. He did this far too often to be overlooked, although I guess he could have been sweating.

Either way, it's not like he had great stuff that was moving all over the place. He got lucky more often than not.

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:

 

[Cowtown]

And the rule will be changed to allow an ump to determine intent. As noted above, a runner shouldn't be rewarded just because a guy in lying flat on his face unconscious.

Determine "intent?" I dunno VT, a judge, two lawyers and 12 jurors struggle trying to do that. And they can have as long as they want. If the pitcher intends to throw a strike and misses, it's a ball regardless. The way I see that play is that it's no different than when, after bunting a ball down the first base line, the batter runs inside the base line interfering with the throw. It doesn't matter whether he "intended" to do so, he did. Period. And he's out. Period.

That being said, there's no other reason for the third baseman to have raised his legs - twice - like that.

 

[upperdeck]

you're really grasping at straws. you have to be a sox fan - because it was a clear call. And his "step back towards 2nd" is a joke.

Imagine if they didn't call the obstruction and then the sox won. The cardinals would have with out a doubt suffered injustice. The sox, in this case, did not. They only suffered a bizarre ending. Case closed.

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.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Determine "intent?" I dunno VT, a judge, two lawyers and 12 jurors struggle trying to do that. And they can have as long as they want. If the pitcher intends to throw a strike and misses, it's a ball regardless. The way I see that play is that it's no different than when, after bunting a ball down the first base line, the batter runs inside the base line interfering with the throw. It doesn't matter whether he "intended" to do so, he did. Period. And he's out. Period.

That being said, there's no other reason for the third baseman to have raised his legs - twice - like that.

Actually, maybe he was just trying to get out of the way assuming the runner will run around him (considering he was a full six feet inside of third base - well his head was). Seems like you all are assuming intent of Middlebrooks, but in reality, the feet had nothing to do with the obstruction. He tripped over the 3rd baseman's ass, not his feet.