I was rooting for the Cardinals.Originally Posted by George Anderson
Why should the Red Sox suffer because Craig choose to run an inside slant instead of directly toward home plate?
I was rooting for the Cardinals.
Why should the Red Sox suffer because Craig choose to run an inside slant instead of directly toward home plate?
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
I understand that. I was commenting only on comments that he did it on purpose trying to trip Craig....not as it relates to the ruling by the ump.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Ok, that is interesting. There WAS obstruction simply by the fielder being in the way of the runner. It was impossible to avoid but that's that.
BUT ...
I'm not convinced that Middlebrooks WAS trying to trip Craig. And, if that's not the case, if Craig really tripped simpy because Middlebrooks was in the way, then it sounds like the call shouldn't have been made according to that rule since it WASN'T a "very flagrant" case.
Middlebrooks didn't have the ball to make a play but was on the base path.
The shoe fits.
I know and I agree. But this wrinkle has been injected into the debate that in a situation like that, the umps should just let the players play. I don't agree with that. But I particularly don't agree with that if it was intentional.
Again, why did Middlebrooks raise his legs twice? Lay on the ground on your stomach and then try to get ups. Do you raise your legs? Maybe. Do you do it twice? No way.
Stick to your guns.
You should take the absence to mean that it doesn't matter. And the rule is written to address what happened.
BTW, what is your level of expertise that we should believe your interpretation of what happened instead of a man who has been umping MLB games for 27 years?
The rule book allows Craig to run wherever he wants to run as long as he is not avoiding a tag.
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard
He wasn't blocking the base path. With Craig's liberal interpretation of the base path, there is zero opportunity to field that ball without being in jeopardy of obstruction. The game was over when he tried to catch the ball, and if that's a rule, it's a crying shame.
That's your opinion that the rule was written to address this situation. It should have some wording around the limits of "progress of the runner" as now it's turned into the "spirit" of the law.
You really didn't need to go there on your second paragraph. Appeal to authority is not compelling to me, nor should it be. It's an oft used logical fallacy. I'm simply having a conversation about what happened on the field. when 100% of all experts agree on everything, then you can play the "what's your level of expertise" card. We're just a bunch of schmucks on an internet board just sharing observations. Besides, you haven't shared your level of expertise that we should believe your interpretation that the absence of comment on the basepath means it doesn't matter?
Last edited by MWM; 10-27-2013 at 01:48 AM.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Does it state this anywhere in the rule book? If it does, then that would make it an easy call. I just haven't seen that explicitly in what's been posted on the rules.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Let's be fair. Craig was not standing up when he got to 3rd. It's not as if he were standing straight up and then decided to make a dash for Middlebrooks when he could have run outside the baseline. He stood up exactly where his feet stopped after his slide, looked towards where the ball went on the over throw and then headed for home. He was on the inside of the base because of his slide not because of crazy running decisions. When he turned for home, Middlebrooks was in the way.
Again...sucky way to lose a game but it was not an awful call. It was the right one by the book. Perhaps an awful rule.
Both players have a right to be where they were. The third baseman has a right to make a play on the ball; which he did. The action of making a play on the ball caused him to fall toward the 2nd base side of the bag. As he attempted to rise, he was contacted by a runner who was attempting to acquire the next base. The fielder did not intentionally lay his body in front of the runner to prevent advancement.
The contact was incidental; part and parcel to playing the game as it's intended. Terrible judgment on the umpire's part.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
redsfandan (10-27-2013)
So there's zero responsibility to not take the obstructed path? I honestly don't know how you even enforce that. Why aren't players taking a big turn on singles and bee lining into the first basemen every time? Free base apparently.
MWM (10-27-2013)
[QUOTE=MWM;2996771We're just a bunch of schmucks on an internet board just sharing observations. Besides, you haven't shared your level of expertise that we should believe your interpretation that the absence of comment on the basepath means it doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]
Im Joe Torre. It was the right call.
I defy you to find an experienced umpire that disagrees with this call. All 6 umpires were interviewed after the game. They said it was a black-and-white, cut-and-dried call. Joe Torre was interviewed after the game. He quoted the rule book and said it was the obvious, correct call.
The only disagreement I see is on this message board, mainly by those who are unfamiliar with the rule.
George Anderson (10-27-2013),RadfordVA (10-27-2013)
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
