SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
10/26 Red Sox vs. Cardinals World Series Game 3 Thread
|
Post by tizzle on Oct 27, 2013 1:10:00 GMT -5
1. For all the chest thumping by Torre and co, the rule is written vaguely. And in all my years watching baseball, I've never seen this call made no matter how many times I've seen players get tangled. They, rightly, have never decided it was the way the game should be called to punish a defender for going to the ground. It just isn't called, but they decided to screw us with it here.
2. The umps kept saying Craig is entitled to a path to home plate. He had one, from the bag to the plate. He chose to run out of the baseline and trip over a defenseless defender.
3. I guess doe Sox pointed out that Craig, by making a move back towards 2nd, needed to go touch 3rd again. Very good point.
|
|
|
Post by nationinthesouth on Oct 27, 2013 1:47:21 GMT -5
Can Berry not play defense at all? too late now but him over JBJ seems to just be a wasted roster spot. WMB shouldnt see the field again at this point, he is no more of a threat at the plate than Drew and cant field any ball not directly at him. We have to just go with Drew at short and PH late and Xander at third. Salty has value, a switch hitting catcher than has some power during the regular season but his defense is so bad it devalues what he can bring in a short series, especially when he is currently on one of the streaks he currently is on. We still really only need one in Stl. so it isnt the end of the world and there is still time for Farrell to recover.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 27, 2013 6:16:52 GMT -5
Apologies if some of these points / opinions are universally agreed upon; not up to reading the whole thread.
-- I feared Matheny going to Siegrist against Salty, then Drew. (I was just surprised that he tried it in a close game; I thought he'd be burying Siegrist a bit like he did in the NLCS. I thought Matheny lifting Choate to have Maness face Nava, thus rendering my other complaint about the batting order moot, was a mistake and a gift.) I can't quite argue with hitting WMB for Drew, but you wouldn't have needed to, because Axford would have likely faced Bogaerts / Drew / PH. And perhaps Drew makes the play on Carpenter leading off the 7th.
-- Farrell has acknowledged missing the double switch that would have brought Ross into the game, so I won't beat that horse.
-- At the time, I thought Uehara should have pitched the 8th, but in retrospect I rather like the idea of bringing in Workman to try to steal an inning before going to him. I also thought we'd see Uehara in the 8th once Workman got into trouble, and it was ballsy to try to get out of it without going to Koji. When the gamble paid off, I was sure we'd see Uehara for the 9th.
No, you don't need two innings from Workman; you want to guarantee that the best pitcher on earth pitches two innings. The decision in front of Farrell was, does Koji pitch the 8th and 9th, or 9th and 10th? I think I would have ended up applauding the latter decision, even though it was risky and bold. Because ...
-- I had a nice warm feeling about Axford having to face Victorino, Pedroia, Ortiz, Nava, Bogaerts in the top of the 10th, and I bet a lot of people were looking forward to that. I liked our chances of scoring there. I ended up liking our chances of winning he game if Koji pitched the 9th and 10th. The way our lineup was set up, the 10th looked like the inning we might score, not the 9th, and that's why having Worrkman pitch the 8th was a gamble that should have paid off.
-- Pitching to Jay was the right move. There is going to be a bottom of the 10th if you get out of the inning, and you want Kolten Wong to lead off, not Matt Carpenter. With Uehara on the mound, the odds of getting Jay and Kozma out are tremendously close to the odds of getting Kozma and Wong. In contrast, the odds of Koji giving up a run to Carpenter, Beltran, and Holliday in the 10th, though still tiny, are close to twice as high as his giving one up to Wong, Carpenter, and Beltran, because the only danger with him is yielding the HR or XBH to Beltran or Holliday.
-- Saltalamacchia has got to be aware of who's pitching and who's up next with Koji facing Jay. He has to be thinking, if we get an out here without a run scoring, we are golden, because there is no way that Koji does not retire Pete Kozma. if he has that thought in advance, it overrides any stupid instinct he might have on the subsequent play ...
-- Like throwing to 3B to try to get Craig, even though he had no chance at all. Given the preceding bullet point, and that it was incredibly ill-advised even without it, under any circumstances ... when you combine the wrongness of the decision with the badness of the execution, I'm not sure I can think of a worse play in Red Sox history. I mean, at least Buckner correctly decided to try to field the ball.
-- I can't believe people are complaining about the call. Middlebrooks, lying prone on the ground, lifts his legs up and forces Craig to maneuver over them. It's clear and obvious obstruction as the rule is written; if you do anything that slows the runner down, that means the results of the subsequent play are thrown out if, in the umpire's judgment, the obstruction affected the odds of the run scoring. I think there would have been a much bigger controversy coming from the Cardinal's side had the call not been made.
-- I was notoriously critical of the Peavy trade, because I thought it didn't represent a clear upgrade over Workman in the rotation, and because I thought it might tempt the team into using Peavy as the the post-season 4th starter when Felix Doubront, ladies and gentlemen, is and always has been the fourth best starting pitcher on this team. This is especially so against the Cardinals' lineup. I take no grim pleasure in seeing that Doubront had the 3rd highest WPA for the Sox in this game, after Bogaerts and Ortiz. And don't give me FIP or BABIP about his two K-less innings; all his outs in play were poorly hit balls. If we went to a more sophisticated mode of analysis, based on hit/fx, it's two shutout innings.
-- As bummed as I am (can't-read-the-game-thread bummed), this is an incredibly resilient team. I am guardedly optimistic about Buchholz tomorrow, given that he was clearly hurting his last start and still had command and stuff for five innings.
-- If it comes to it, does anyone else want Doubront starting Game 7? Now that would be a story. Denny Galehouse reverse karma, here we come!
--OTOH, "A Halloween night Game 7, however, appears more questionable from a weather perspective. If the Midwest frontal system is slower, then a mild, breezy night would be in store. If, however, the cold front moves faster, then a rain threat would enter the picture, along with strong south to southwest winds." -- Weather.com. One day of rain allows Lester to go on 3 days rest, which I think is a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Oct 27, 2013 6:50:59 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, the big decision of the game was hitting for Doubront for no good reason. That really had the "Gomes is intangibles personified" rationale behind it. Posters were commenting at the time that they felt good about the game after the Sox had tied it, and I sort of agreed. Then Gomes hit for Doubront and wasted both a bench spot and a pitcher doing well. At that point the Sox needed to play with the thought in their minds of a potential extended game (especially given the quality of the Cards' pen), and if a starter is pitching effectively in relief YOU LEAVE HIM IN THERE. Managing a tie game late is DIFFERENT from managing a game with run differential late. And as pointed out, this decision not only affected this game, the cascading effect may really hamstring the Sox for the remainder of the series.
As for the obstruction call, I think it was correct. If the argument against it is that Craig was in fair territory getting back to the bag, so what? Fair territory is part of the baseline, especially with the bag inside the line. Middlebrooks was not obstructing an improperly positioned runner. Now we teach kids from little league on up when leading off 3rd to stand in foul territory, for obvious reasons, but if a runner WANTED to, he could stand in fair territory and be perfectly within his rights as far as being in the baseline. And after the ball is put into play, the runner between 3rd and home has as much right to the path immediately on the fair side of the chalk as he does to the path immediately on the foul side of it.
If you look at the way the playing field is laid out, there is an alley laid out the last 45' down the first base line as a guide for the batter/runner to keep him from interfering with play on his way to first base. There is no such alley laid out down the 3rd base line. Baserunning protocol between 3rd and home is different from the protocal between home and 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 27, 2013 7:10:42 GMT -5
... -- I can't believe people are complaining about the call. Middlebrooks, lying prone on the ground, lifts his legs up and forces Craig to maneuver over them. It's clear and obvious obstruction as the rule is written; if you do anything that slows the runner down, that means the results of the subsequent play are thrown out if, in the umpire's judgment, the obstruction affected the odds of the run scoring. I think there would have been a much bigger controversy coming from the Cardinal's side had the call not been made. ... Water under the bridge at this point, but the reason for questioning the call is very simple. The umpire claimed that the basepath was obstructed. Look at the video. Craig runs over Middlebrooks near his buttocks, nowhere near the chalkline. He's not in the basepath. The ump has the discretion to make that call and he did. But his reason doesn't jive with the visual evidence. Stuff like this happens in baseball all the time, of course. It gives the game its history, stories we can tell each other later. No complaint, just a recognition that it was the umpire who decided to end the game. His narrative, however, isn't in keeping with the footage. That's not unusual either.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Oct 27, 2013 7:56:12 GMT -5
Completely under the radar performance: Felix pitched very well in a big spot, despite having literally one of the worst strike zones I've ever seen to work with.
I think we could be looking at a really nice season from him next year. I'm expecting him to take a big step forward.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Oct 27, 2013 8:04:46 GMT -5
... -- I can't believe people are complaining about the call. Middlebrooks, lying prone on the ground, lifts his legs up and forces Craig to maneuver over them. It's clear and obvious obstruction as the rule is written; if you do anything that slows the runner down, that means the results of the subsequent play are thrown out if, in the umpire's judgment, the obstruction affected the odds of the run scoring. I think there would have been a much bigger controversy coming from the Cardinal's side had the call not been made. ... Water under the bridge at this point, but the reason for questioning the call is very simple. The umpire claimed that the basepath was obstructed. Look at the video. Craig runs over Middlebrooks near his buttocks, nowhere near the chalkline. He's not in the basepath. The ump has the discretion to make that call and he did. But his reason doesn't jive with the visual evidence. Stuff like this happens in baseball all the time, of course. It gives the game its history, stories we can tell each other later. No complaint, just a recognition that it was the umpire who decided to end the game. His narrative, however, isn't in keeping with the footage. That's not unusual either. I agree with Norm. It was a bad call, that is why people are complaining. This is not at all like the tuck rule. With the tuck rule, the ruling was applied correctly upon review. In this case there was no review and the vagueness of the rule itself has become an excuse for the poor call. There are several mitigating factors that made this NOT obstruction. 1.) Will Middlebrooks finished his action of fielding the ball laying flat on the ground - his toes on the third base line - facing second base. 2.) Will Middlebrooks did not have time to reasonably move from that position before contact was made. His best chance of moving out of the way of the runner is to lift his feet off the base path. 3.) Allen Craig finishes the slide standing on third base. 4.) Allen Craig takes his first step towards right field, taking him a solid two feet from the line. He only turned back towards home plate as he was falling down. 5.) Allen Craig collides with WMBs backside - and he was clearly off balance even before that. The act of WMB lifting his legs was not the reason for him falling. 6.) The rule does not say that every time there is contact like this it is obstruction. In fact it specifically says it is most likely obstruction - implying that there are collisions that are not obstruction. 7.) It is not defined in the rules, but the "act of fielding the ball" cannot reasonably be over until the fielder has a reasonable chance to move from the position t he act of fielding the ball put him in. And at the end of the day, had Joyce NOT made that call no one would be talking about it. It was such incidental contact - and with everything else that happened on that play - it would have been an after thought. Games should be decided by players swinging bats not umpires swinging dicks. There was no reason to make that call.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 27, 2013 8:10:10 GMT -5
... -- I can't believe people are complaining about the call. Middlebrooks, lying prone on the ground, lifts his legs up and forces Craig to maneuver over them. It's clear and obvious obstruction as the rule is written; if you do anything that slows the runner down, that means the results of the subsequent play are thrown out if, in the umpire's judgment, the obstruction affected the odds of the run scoring. I think there would have been a much bigger controversy coming from the Cardinal's side had the call not been made. ... Water under the bridge at this point, but the reason for questioning the call is very simple. The umpire claimed that the basepath was obstructed. Look at the video. Craig runs over Middlebrooks near his buttocks, nowhere near the chalkline. He's not in the basepath.
The ump has the discretion to make that call and he did. But his reason doesn't jive with the visual evidence. Stuff like this happens in baseball all the time, of course. It gives the game its history, stories we can tell each other later. No complaint, just a recognition that it was the umpire who decided to end the game. His narrative, however, isn't in keeping with the footage. That's not unusual either. It's not the chalkline that counts Norm. When a runner goes down he establishes a new baseline when he gets up. As a 30 year ump the first thing I said to myself seeing it live was that's obstruction I hope they miss the call.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Oct 27, 2013 8:25:39 GMT -5
Water under the bridge at this point, but the reason for questioning the call is very simple. The umpire claimed that the basepath was obstructed. Look at the video. Craig runs over Middlebrooks near his buttocks, nowhere near the chalkline. He's not in the basepath.
The ump has the discretion to make that call and he did. But his reason doesn't jive with the visual evidence. Stuff like this happens in baseball all the time, of course. It gives the game its history, stories we can tell each other later. No complaint, just a recognition that it was the umpire who decided to end the game. His narrative, however, isn't in keeping with the footage. That's not unusual either. It's not the chalkline that counts Norm. When a runner goes down he establishes a new baseline when he gets up. As a 30 year ump the first thing I said to myself seeing it live was that's obstruction I hope they miss the call. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why he established a new baseline two feet inside the 3rd base bag. Seems like kind of an odd route to home plate, no?
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Oct 27, 2013 9:29:00 GMT -5
Check out this game recap from the Red Sox vs Athletics in game 3 of the 2003 ALCS (Aka LILLY game). It seems to me that Demuth already concluded that Craig should be awarded home plate. Palermo was even quoted in the article linked below saying the umpire has to rule that the runner would have been safe without any obstruction. It was not a given that Craig on his gimpy ankle would have been safe. The fact that Demuth ruled that way is yet another error in judgment which calls into question how MLB awards assignments to such incompetent umpires in post-season games. Interesting that there were two obstruction calls in this game from the 2003 ALCS. espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=231004102
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 27, 2013 10:23:33 GMT -5
I'm over discussion of the obstruction call, but for those who are not, I offer the following as points of information. I haven't read a single post in this thread except for some on page 11, so forgive me for anything repetitive. I'm just responding generally to things I've seen and not intending to respond to any particular people.
1) There is nothing in the rulebook about intent with regard to obstruction. This includes intent to block the basepath, intent to get out of the way or not get out of the way, intent to raise one's legs, or whatever. Obstruction is a simple two-part question: (1) Did the fielder, not fielding the ball (including following a failed attempt to field the ball), impede the runner? (more on this below) and (2) Once we have established the obstruction, what would the result of the play have been without the obstruction? For reference, last night, Joyce made call (1) (you see him point in the video as soon as he sees it) and DeMuth made call (2) (after the tag at home, he kills the play and awards Craig home, which he signaled by calling the runner safe, which was confusing at first but kind of what he had to do to make that call given the situation). You'll note that this works in the other direction while the fielder IS making a play on the ball, when a catcher, say, blocks the plate and most likely meant to do it. Intent doesn't matter there either - it's whether he's fielding the ball. TAKEAWAY: If you're arguing that Middlebrooks didn't mean to obstruct him, or that he was moving his legs because he was trying to get out of the way, you're arguing a point that doesn't matter.
2) "Impede" has nothing to do with Craig actually tripping or touching Middlebrooks. If a fielder stands in a runner's way, and the runner sees him and goes around him to get to the next base, but as a result is thrown out when he would have been safe if the runner wasn't in his way, it's still obstruction despite the lack of physical contact (you get this a lot in Little League). Impede just means that you are in the runner's way the sense that he needs to avoid you, period. TAKEAWAY: If you're arguing that Craig was already falling, or that Middlebrooks moving his legs didn't affect the runner at all, you're arguing a point that doesn't matter.
3) There is nothing about reasonableness in the rulebook. Anywhere. TAKEAWAY: If you're saying that it was unreasonable to expect Middlebrooks to get out of the way, you're arguing a point that doesn't matter.
4) Based on the MLB rules "fielding a ball" is literal in the sense that you are physically making a play (or preparing to make a play) on the ball. Once the ball gets by you, you are not making a play on the ball. There is an example in the rulebook, read by Torre last night, of a play at second where the runner tries to steal, fielder misses the throw and impedes runner's progress to third, that says obstruction likely occurred there. Now certainly there's some point where "fielding the ball" has to become "not fielding the ball" that could matter if the ball has literally JUST gone by the fielder or something, but that's not last night's play. If you watch the replay, the ball is already on the outfield grass by the time Craig even decides to run, and a couple of seconds have gone by before the obstruction occurs. TAKEAWAY: If you're saying that Middlebrooks didn't have time to get out of the way, or that he was in the position he was in because he tried to field the ball, unfortunately, you're arguing a point that doesn't matter.
5) The basepath thing, part 1: The only times a runner needs to stay in the "basepath" (more on this below) are (a) when a fielder is trying to tag him and (b) the last 45 feet from home plate to first (the alley that gets marked on the field). The "basepath" for the purposes of (a) is the direct line from the runner to the base once the tag play has become an issue (I forget the proper wording here, but in other words, you can't go way out of this direct line to avoid a tag). Obstruction could easily happen outside the traditional notion of the basepath (meaning the direct line between bases) - for example, think of a batter-runner rounding first to run to second, and running into the first baseman on the way to second, which would likely happen well off the "basepath" given how he's rounding the base. TAKEAWAY: If you are arguing that he wasn't in the basepath, here meaning the direct line between third and home, you are arguing a point that doesn't matter.
5b) The basepath thing, part 2: If you think that a runner can think fast enough to go out of his way to take a path to the next base that will lead to a fielder obstructing him, but still keep the play close enough that part 2 of the two-part question I laid out in point 1 will result in "he would have been safe," stop watching last night's play in slow motion and watch it at full speed. Craig slid into the base hard, popped up in a manner that took him back towards second because of how he slid and because he was looking to find the ball, then began running directly to home once he made the decision to run home. TAKEAWAY: If you're arguing that Craig could have taken another path home, you're arguing a point that doesn't matter. (See also point 1 about intent) If you're arguing that Craig intended to run over Middlebrooks to cause obstruction, you have way too much faith in the human brain and body to react that quickly.
Finally, 6) A point about still shots: For those posting still shots of Joyce looking in the other direction, watch the video. What happens is that he looks at the play at third as it happens. Looks away once to see what direction the ball is going in. Looks back to the bag once when the ball is only a few feet up the line and sees Craig looking at the ball, deciding to run, and WMB on the ground. He then looks once more to the ball (the conspiracy theorists' "HE WASN'T EVEN LOOKING" still shot), and turns back to the bag again to see Craig stumbling over Middlebrooks and immediately points, signaling obstruction. Remember, all he's calling here is that Middlebrooks impeded Craig in the way discussed above. He doesn't need to see contact or anything like that. Also, if you're looking at still shots to show Craig was 'SO FAR OUT OF THE BASELINE', see points 5 and 5b, and watch the play at full speed, where the position he winds up in looks much more natural.
Now:
If you want to argue that the part of the rule that says a fielder who just tried to field a ball and missed, but hasn't had that great of a chance to move out of the way, can be ruled to have obstructed a runner, then there's probably a fair argument. I have qualms about making the umpire make extra determinations, like whether the fielder had the opportunity to move and such, but note that this discussion is about what the rule "should be" and doesn't have bearing on whether the "correct" call was made last night.
If you want to argue that the umps should have "swallowed the whistle", so to speak, and not made the call there (I briefly thought this last night, tbh), then again, it's an argument outside the letter of the rule and it's probably a fair discussion. I disagree with this sentiment, but I also think similar "outside the letter of the rulebook" things in baseball, like the neighborhood play on the pivot, shouldn't be called that way or at least how they are called. But again, note that at this point, we're talking about how the rulebook should be interpreted, not the rule itself. I don't know how MLB umps are trained to call the obstruction rule from this standpoint, but I think that "swallowing the whistle" here is much different than, say, "letting them play" in hockey and basketball where we're talking about degrees of contact on fouls or calling penalties. Perhaps the closest analog is blocking a base/the plate while fielding a ball, clearly on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 27, 2013 10:28:19 GMT -5
The sad thing is the call is overshadowing Farrell's stupidity and Salty's defensive liabilities behind the plate. Didn't Francona one time say you manage egos in the regular season and you manage games in the postseason? Farrell gets an F for not playing Nava in game 2 and letting Workman hit. Farrell blew that game not the umps.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 27, 2013 10:45:44 GMT -5
I'm over discussion of the obstruction call, but for those who are not, I offer the following as points of information. I haven't read a single post in this thread except for some on page 11, so forgive me for anything repetitive. I'm just responding generally to things I've seen and not intending to respond to any particular people. Thanks for clearing that up - you should be a lawyer or something. I hope the examine and adjust this rule in the off-season (i know this is unlikely - especially now). It just isn't right to fault a fielder for attempting to field a ball and being unable to get out of the way from where a base runner chooses to run. It also is never good when the umpires are examining 'intent'. The most similar example I can think of is with the HBP where the batter has to 'attempt' to get out of the way (which likely wouldn't have applied here anyway). But this call is usually missed to Victorino's the batter's benefit anyway. Just can't make everyone happy.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 27, 2013 10:46:46 GMT -5
Now the Red Sox have to win it all for Will.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 27, 2013 10:49:31 GMT -5
Can Berry not play defense at all? too late now but him over JBJ seems to just be a wasted roster spot.WMB shouldnt see the field again at this point, he is no more of a threat at the plate than Drew and cant field any ball not directly at him. We have to just go with Drew at short and PH late and Xander at third. Salty has value, a switch hitting catcher than has some power during the regular season but his defense is so bad it devalues what he can bring in a short series, especially when he is currently on one of the streaks he currently is on. We still really only need one in Stl. so it isnt the end of the world and there is still time for Farrell to recover. Berry is by far the best defensive left fielder on our roster right now. He's not JBJ out there, but his speed makes him a solid enough outfielder. Question: How would you be using JBJ if he was on the roster? He certainly wouldn't start, and I don't see Farrell using him as a pinch-hitter over anyone (we saw last night why its not smart to take Drew out, and I doubt Farrell takes out Gomes against a RHP for JBJ late in a game). Maybe an inning for defense in left occasionally, but I'd take having a capable pinch-runner available in a big spot over that.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 27, 2013 10:57:55 GMT -5
Just wanna say that last night was poorly managed by Farrell. I think he is a terrific manager, but he still makes rookie mistakes. Regardless, it's been a great season and I really hate the Cardinals so please let's smoke them tonight.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Oct 27, 2013 11:04:52 GMT -5
Here's another issue with that rule - you're allowing human beings to determine in real time whether Craig would have scored without the obstruction (and they don't have the help of technology, either). What other sport does that?
In the NFL, you don't give a team a touchdown because, if not for a defensive hold, he would have scored. And in basketball, you don't automatically get two points when you're fouled shooting a jumper. The point is that no other sport allows refs to make assumptions ... and for good reason.
I know it's hard to make these comparisons between sports, but it's absurd that the MLB leaves these cause-effect assumptions in the hands of the umpires. These clowns can't even call a consisten strike zone, yet they're supposed to determine within seconds what would have happened. It's absurd.
The difficulty is that there isn't an applicable penalty for baseball like the other sports (yards in the NFL, free throws in basketball, etc.), but I still have an issue with automatically awarding a guy home plate on a play he may or may not have scored on (in fairness, he probably would've scored, but we can't know for sure). Maybe instead you send him back to 3rd, or you allow the umps to use video to make a better determination, whatever. But something needs to change with that rule.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Oct 27, 2013 11:20:18 GMT -5
I'm not going to debate the rule, - especially with a bunch of lawyers - but I think judgment can be questioned. Salty has been, rightly, questioned for his lack of judgment on making the throw, but how about questioning the ump for his lack of judgment in not "swallowing the whistle" to use Chris' term? The play was certainly marginal and if it had happened in say the 5th inning not a big deal to call it. But this call Ended. The. Game! Had things been allowed to continue one of 3 things happens: 1.The runner is thrown out at home, 2.The throw is off line or the catcher fails to handle it, 3.The runner retreats safely to third where the next batter has a chance to drive him in. In all these cases the players get to determine the outcome of the game, only by making the call he did does the umpire himself determine the outcome of a world series game. Imagine if this had been the bottom of the ninth in game seven. So I'm not going to debate the rule here, it's clear that the call is at least defendable, but the ump has to be aware of the circumstances and anything short of arod's mugging of Arroyo needs to be let go in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by soxfaninnj on Oct 27, 2013 11:53:11 GMT -5
Craig had a clean path to home plate with no one blocking it, yet he got up and started running like a drunk and fell over middle brooks. People on here talking about how you teach little league kids or how you been an umpire for 30 years it doesn't apply here. We are talking about a crucial world series game. If the call was right why did Jim Joyce lie after the game when the reporter asked him, doesn't the runner have to be in the base line for obstruction to apply? Joyce responded" Craig was on the chalk.
|
|
|
Post by nationinthesouth on Oct 27, 2013 12:03:23 GMT -5
Craig had a clean path to home plate with no one blocking it, yet he got up and started running like a drunk and fell over middle brooks. People on here talking about how you teach little league kids or how you been an umpire for 30 years it doesn't apply here. We are talking about a crucial world series game. If the call was right why did Jim Joyce lie after the game when the reporter asked him, doesn't the runner have to be in the base line for obstruction to apply? Joyce responded" Craig was on the chalk.I am not sure they "lied" but I accepted the call more before I saw that press conference. That whole thing just came off as dirty and having Torre stumble through things didnt help. Maybe thats why they try to avoid having umps available to the press. The issue that concerns me the most is the overall performance by the umpires this entire playoffs. Maybe K-zone and super slow -mo just makes it easier for the common viewer to see the mistakes but it appears the selection process for these crews needs to be looked at. I couldnt have been merit based.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 27, 2013 12:25:21 GMT -5
Just wanna say that last night was poorly managed by Farrell. I think he is a terrific manager, but he still makes rookie mistakes. Regardless, it's been a great season and I really hate the Cardinals so please let's smoke them tonight. I would agree with this. Farrell is a big reason why we're even in the World Series, but he's also potentially going to cost us the chance to win it. The second he pinch hit for Doubront last night I lost all hope that we'd win the game, because we gave up the strategic advantage of having a 'starter' still fresh for the 7th and pitching well in a tie game while St Louis was quickly going through their pen. This was classic overmanaging, and everything else after that just felt inevitable to me. That said, a win tonight changes everything. So let's get it done boys!
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 27, 2013 12:46:49 GMT -5
Craig had a clean path to home plate with no one blocking it, yet he got up and started running like a drunk and fell over middle brooks. People on here talking about how you teach little league kids or how you been an umpire for 30 years it doesn't apply here. We are talking about a crucial world series game. If the call was right why did Jim Joyce lie after the game when the reporter asked him, doesn't the runner have to be in the base line for obstruction to apply? Joyce responded" Craig was on the chalk. I am not sure they "lied" but I accepted the call more before I saw that press conference. That whole thing just came off as dirty and having Torre stumble through things didnt help. Maybe thats why they try to avoid having umps available to the press. The issue that concerns me the most is the overall performance by the umpires this entire playoffs. Maybe K-zone and super slow -mo just makes it easier for the common viewer to see the mistakes but it appears the selection process for these crews needs to be looked at. I couldnt have been merit based. That may just be the way Joyce stamped it into his memory. Given the... extremely extensive... overview of the rule by Chris up above, Joyce probably had at least an arguable case for ending the game. It was a judgement call and he made his judgement. Some of us may not agree with his decision to do that, but he's the umpire. That said, he probably should have stopped right there without the chalk stuff. That bullshit just adds fuel to the media fire. In fact, given Chris's reading of the rule, the actual baseline is irrelevant. It comes down to Craig's reaction to the ball, his movement in Middlebrooks' direction without doing much looking, and the latter having put his legs up - for whatever reason. Probably didn't hurt his case that he's somewhat lame and tripping was an easy thing to do. I really dislike having a game end like this. It immediately shifts the focus from the actual play to arcane rules and their interpretation. It just deflates everything - instantly. But it happens. In baseball it happens a lot. On to the next game.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Oct 27, 2013 12:48:50 GMT -5
Need this game tonight. Need it bad.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Oct 27, 2013 13:11:58 GMT -5
I don't know who sucks more, WMB or Drew. Actually its WMB because of Drew's defense. Kid needs to be gone this offseason. can't believe I thought he would be an impact bat in the middle of the lineup at one point. he takes at bats like a high school kid.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Oct 27, 2013 13:19:25 GMT -5
If we end up winning this thing in 7 games were all going to have great memories and I'm sure no one will be saying that 2007 felt better. The greater the anxiety, the greater the euphoria
|
|
|