I did watch teh replay. And I disagree. His legs did contribute to him tripping.

It is totally a crappy way for a game to end, but that is baseball. Umps make the decision.

I thought the strike zone was low all night, but that is their call.

quote:

---

Did you watch the replay? His feet didn't trip him. He was stumbling as he went over him which made it look like middlebrooks caused contact

---

That does not matter. Even if it was an accident, it is still obstruction. Similar to football player falling down, sticking their legs out and tripping the ball carrier. A defensive player cannot get in the way of the baserunner, not matter what.

You don't have to have intent for it to be obstruction. Most obstruction calls are an infielder standing and watching and a guy running into him, or on a bad pickoff where the guy can't get up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please tell me how he could've avoided him. It was immediate.

---

It could have been avoided by catching the ball, or better yet, not throwing it down there in the first place.

---

Um, ok. Really?

---

Really. Absolute, 100% really.

The Red Sox got themselves in a ****ty position. You don't want to get obstruction called there, don't get yourself in a ****ty position.

I liked the call at first because it looked like the legs were intentionally raised to restrict the runner. Then on replay it was nothing more than a train wreck.

Make a good throw and we have nothing so kinda self inflicted.

Cards are fortunate to get that win. I think had it gone to extra innings, it would have favored Boston...

At full speed the third baseman did 3 push-ups.

Girly ones, but he was either indecisive about getting up or trying to get away with something.

Next year there will be replay right? Would that call have been overturned on a review?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please tell me how he could've avoided him. It was immediate.

---

It could have been avoided by catching the ball, or better yet, not throwing it down there in the first place.

---

Um, ok. Really?

---

Really. Absolute, 100% really.

The Red Sox got themselves in a ****ty position. You don't want to get obstruction called there, don't get yourself in a ****ty position.

---

I'll dumb my question down for you since you can't read the obvious? The throw happenEd, he dove for it and missed it, at that point, how does he aboid contact with a guy laying next to him?

quote:

---

Next year there will be replay right? Would that call have been overturned on a review?

---

Will obstruction calls be reviewable?

Doubt it

quote:

---

The throw happened, he dove for it and missed it, at that point, how does he aboid contact with a guy laying next to him?

---

He probably couldn't...but it's still obstruction.

Didn't even see the little "push ups."

It doesn't matter if he can't do anything about it. If a pitcher picks over and the 1st baseman dives and misses but lands on top of the runner and he can't get up, it's obstruction even though he may not of had intent to do it. If he physically prevents the base runner in any way from getting to the next base, it's obstruction. The call was right, no matter how crappy of an ending it created.

[This message has been edited by Thisguy1 (edited 10/26/2013 11:30p).]

quote:

---

I'll dumb my question down for you since you can't read the obvious? The throw happenEd, he dove for it and missed it, at that point, how does he aboid contact with a guy laying next to him?

---

I understood your question the first time, and I'm going to give you the same answer I gave you the first time.

Don't make the throw, catch it, do something that doesn't put you in a spot where, intentional or not, if you raise your feet it appears that you've obstructed the runner.

I don't believe the rule considers intent, and I don't think the rule considers that if the obstruction happened as a result of your own bad throw and your own dive, that you're allowed to commit the obstruction.

If the 3rd baseman was tripped by the umpire or something whacky like that, then I'd probably have more sympathy.

The only appropriate question here, I think, is did he actually obstruct?

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/26/2013 11:43p).]

Right call. Bring on game 4

At the 1:18 mark and 2:14 mark (closer up), among other contact, it appears to me that the runners left foot clipped the 3rd baseman's left hamstring, and the fielder falls forward.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_10_26_bosmlb_slnmlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=stl#gid=2013_10_26_bosmlb_slnmlb_1&mode=video

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/26/2013 11:49p).]

Intent doesn't matter. He was impeded regardless of how hard/impossible it was for 3rd baseman to get out of way after ball passed. That's the rule.

Why is no one talking about the baseline? Can't wait to see runners finding players in ground out of baseline to fall over now.

Would it matter that Allen Craig sliding into Middlebrooks contributed to him falling over? Probably not, just a thought.

ORaggie if you slide into third, why would you round third to go home? You would go from where you are to home. Middlebrooks didn't really dive, he fell, which is why he didn't make the play.
Oh, and the baserunner creates his own baseline

What about the baseline?

Other than the actual obstruction, my question is did he the runner ever touch home plate and could the Red Sox have appealed on a failure to touch home plate?

It was the right call, raising the feet had nothing to do with it. It's the fielder's responsibility to be out of the way, the runner has the right to a clear basepath. It doesn't matter what led up to it, or why he was in the way. The only exception is when the fielder either has the ball, or is in the act of fielding the ball. The rules specifically say that if he is attempti ng to field the ball but misses, then he can no longer be fielding the ball and must get out of the baserunnrs way

Rule is 2.0, definition of obstruction

Watch the play. He steps a foot or more in after standing from the slide.

Doesn't matter, if he rounds the base on a base hit he's 8 feet outside the line. The baseline isn't a straight line. It's whatever the baserunner makes it. Now if he goes inside and obstructs a throw, he's out. Middlebrooks was not THAT much inside the line. He's mad and is saying he was 5 feet, maybe more inside the line but he's not. He literally just fell over trying to catch it and then started doing push ups because he didn't know what to do. The play is almost word for word defined in the book and people still want to argue it. If you throw a ball into the outfield, you will score unless you something else happens. Catch the ball, you play on.

quote:

---

Watch the play. He steps a foot or more in after standing from the slide.

---

Running out of the baseline is generally only an issue, I think, when the runner is trying to avoid a tag. And even then, he gets 3 feet.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/27/2013 12:16a).]

Hell even running 1 ft inside the line like on a dropped 3rd strike or getting picked off, you're likely not to get called out. It's the guys running 2 ft in the grass that get called out

There is a difference in not being called out running outside the baseline versus having an obstruction call outside the baseline.

So if the 3rd baseman is standing out of the baseline but just standing there and the base runner runs into him after rounding the bag because he is clearly directly in the way, yet still out of the "baseline" then it isn't obstruction? Or the more common one the 1st baseman watching the ball on a double and the runner hits him after rounding 1st. Both obstruction. Both the fielder isn't standing directly on the baseline because like I said, the baserunner makes the baseline.

Every single person commenting on it, including the baseball tonight guys, Joe Torre and anyone else they ask says it's obstruction. The only person saying it wasn't is Middlebrooks.

I'm not aware of a rule saying a fielder can't commit obstruction outside of the baseline.

And I don't think the runner was for practical purposes outside the baseline, anyways. Like I said earlier, they give a runner 3 feet to avoid a tag.

While the fielder is fielding a ball, it is the runners responsibility to stay out of the fielder's way. While not fielding a ball, it is the fielder's responsibility to stay out of the runner's way.

Making a deliberate, unnecessary move toward a fielder, there might be a rule about that, but I don't that is what we're dealing with here.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/27/2013 12:37a).]

The runner slid into 3rd, did not over slide, and then got up after the errant throw and broke for home; about a foot or so inside the base path is exactly where you would expect him to be. Also, the 3B was on the ground fully extended his full height (about 6 feet) towards the inside; there was no where for the runner to go.



[This message has been edited by coconutED (edited 10/27/2013 12:37a).]

The only thing I can find in the rule book about running outside the base path actually refers to trying to avoid a tag.

I think this is just a case where the rule book is just not that clear. I think the umps got it right though.

Middle brooks could have dove for the ball and actually caught it. That's one way to avoid. Also, as he missed the ball he could have rolled towards the pitcher's mound.

Anywho, they made contact, unintentional, and Craig gets 3feet on either side of the line. Doesn't matter if he touched home, he was awarded home.

First, the pats lose on an obscure rule, then the Red Sox do. It's karma for the tuck rule

He has to just be in the way for an obstruction call. He clearly was and was making no attempt to get out of the way. He was just laying in the baseline praying the lf will get the ball. You can't do that. Guy on stl then clearly stumbles while going over him. Right call.

If it weren't for Middlebrooks, then craig would have scored, you can tell bc it was STILL a fairly close play at the plate, obstruction.