3rd Base Obstruction- Sox Fan Conclusion

[redseat]

Red Seat, agree. There are times you can see that Farrell is still learning as a game day manager. The team deserves better decisions from him.

And to those who said he should have not walked to load the bases....what?

Immediately all the announcers scratched their heads on that one, as did I.

Yes there are times I really scratch my head when it comes to Farrell. Perhaps I should give him a break since he has gotten the Red Sox to the World Series... But things he does makes me wonder.

And in regards to Drew... I guess there really is not a better option since Middlebrooks looks lost out there as well.

 

[steveringo]

Yes there are times I really scratch my head when it comes to Farrell. Perhaps I should give him a break since he has gotten the Red Sox to the World Series... But things he does makes me wonder.

And in regards to Drew... I guess there really is not a better option since Middlebrooks looks lost out there as well.

I was laughing with a friend of mine.... we were debating the DH use in the NL & AL... Eventually, we decided the Sox should use their DH for Drew - and just bat the pitcher in each home game...

 

[uncfan103]

Let me ask you this, cause I really don't know. What if he jumped over Middlebrooks and was never touched and he was tagged out, is that still considered interference, or does he have to actually make contact? Yes it was the correct call, but there was nothing Middlebrooks could do....Oh well...what can ya do now...2-2....new series now...

Also, did he ever touch home plate? I would think he would have too no? LOL....crazy and if he didnt, does the run count...it's like hitting a HR and not touching home plate. Then you have to do the appeal right?

You don't have to make contact, if you cause the runner to change his path it's still obstruction. My guess is it would just depend on if the umpire thought the jump slowed him down. Again, if you change the rules so that intent is relevant you would PREVENT base runners from scoring when they should've been able to otherwise, seems just as if not more unfair.

The umpire called him safe, I'm assuming he thought he touched the base. Regardless, the Red Sox never appealed that. They might've had a case, the same way the Cardinals would've probably gotten to start over game one from the point of the umps mistake in the first inning had they played under protest. Neither team did anything about it, so it's over.

 

[apachef4]

You don't have to make contact, if you cause the runner to change his path it's still obstruction. My guess is it would just depend on if the umpire thought the jump slowed him down. Again, if you change the rules so that intent is relevant you would PREVENT base runners from scoring when they should've been able to otherwise, seems just as if not more unfair.

The umpire called him safe, I'm assuming he thought he touched the base. Regardless, the Red Sox never appealed that. They might've had a case, the same way the Cardinals would've probably gotten to start over game one from the point of the umps mistake in the first inning had they played under protest. Neither team did anything about it, so it's over.

It is not a protestable play because it is a judgement call by the umpire. Can't protest judgement calls, only misapplication of the rules.

That said, I thought it was the proper call. He definitely slowed him down to where he would have been safe otherwise.

 

[uncfan103]

It is not a protestable play because it is a judgement call by the umpire. Can't protest judgement calls, only misapplication of the rules.

That said, I thought it was the proper call. He definitely slowed him down to where he would have been safe otherwise.

I know, but if the Red Sox would've tagged Craig after he walked off without touching home wouldn't they have had a protestable argument? 7.04b says he has to touch the plate or they can appeal, right?

The Cardinals most likely would've won because it was absolutely a miss application of the rules in game one, correct? I don't see how, if that game was played under protest, the MLB could explain the Cardinals not winning unless they just say "the rule doesn't matter" which would have been kind of hilarious.

But yeah, absolutely was obstruction. There was no doubt about it.

 

[moxie]

Let me ask you this, cause I really don't know. What if he jumped over Middlebrooks and was never touched and he was tagged out, is that still considered interference, or does he have to actually make contact? Yes it was the correct call, but there was nothing Middlebrooks could do....Oh well...what can ya do now...2-2....new series now...

Also, did he ever touch home plate? I would think he would have too no? LOL....crazy and if he didnt, does the run count...it's like hitting a HR and not touching home plate. Then you have to do the appeal right?

I kept looking at that, too. It looks like he may have eventually scraped it while rolling around. It all kind of gets lost when his teammates come out, but no angle that I could see shows that he actually ever touched the plate. Then I remembered when Brian McCann blocked Jose Fernandez from crossing the plate from about 1/2 a mile away and they still counted it.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

It was the right call and intent is too subjective, if the defensive player gets in the way of the baserunner in any way without the ball it's obstruction. I think saying there must be intent is too subjective.

 

[apachef4]

I know, but if the Red Sox would've tagged Craig after he walked off without touching home wouldn't they have had a protestable argument? 7.04b says he has to touch the plate or they can appeal, right?

The Cardinals most likely would've won because it was absolutely a miss application of the rules in game one, correct? I don't see how, if that game was played under protest, the MLB could explain the Cardinals not winning unless they just say "the rule doesn't matter" which would have been kind of hilarious.

But yeah, absolutely was obstruction. There was no doubt about it.

Hmmm, I didn't know that was in question. I honestly have no idea if he touched the plate. I believe you are correct that he WOULD have to touch the plate in order for the run to count. Basically, he was awarded the plate by the obstruction, much like a runner would be awarded a base or bases on a throw that goes into the stands. Those runners still have to run and touch the bases in order, they can't just go from 1st to 3rd without touching 2nd just because they were awarded 3rd.

However, when it comes to a protest of whether or not he touched the plate, I still think that's a no-go area. If the umpires say he did, then it's a judgement call. If they say he didn't, then it's an appeal play, and the Red Sox gave up the right to appeal when they left the field (or when they didn't appeal by the time the umps left the field - I can't remember how end-of-game appeal plays work exactly). The only way it would have been appealable would be if we are correct that the runner should have touched the plate, and the umpire told the Red Sox that he didn't have to touch the plate when they were trying to appeal. That would be a misapplication of the rule (again, assuming WE got the rule right) and would be eligible to be appealed, I would think.

Convoluted enough?

 

[uncfan103]

Hmmm, I didn't know that was in question. I honestly have no idea if he touched the plate. I believe you are correct that he WOULD have to touch the plate in order for the run to count. Basically, he was awarded the plate by the obstruction, much like a runner would be awarded a base or bases on a throw that goes into the stands. Those runners still have to run and touch the bases in order, they can't just go from 1st to 3rd without touching 2nd just because they were awarded 3rd.

However, when it comes to a protest of whether or not he touched the plate, I still think that's a no-go area. If the umpires say he did, then it's a judgement call. If they say he didn't, then it's an appeal play, and the Red Sox gave up the right to appeal when they left the field (or when they didn't appeal by the time the umps left the field - I can't remember how end-of-game appeal plays work exactly). The only way it would have been appealable would be if we are correct that the runner should have touched the plate, and the umpire told the Red Sox that he didn't have to touch the plate when they were trying to appeal. That would be a misapplication of the rule (again, assuming WE got the rule right) and would be eligible to be appealed, I would think.

Convoluted enough?

That was my thinking on the whole situation.

What are your thoughts on how the World Series would have been affected if Matheny protested the call in game one? Do you think they would have won or do you think that it would have caused too much of a logistical problem (with travel and TV) for the MLB to replay the game from the first inning?

 

[apachef4]

It was the right call and intent is too subjective, if the defensive player gets in the way of the baserunner in any way without the ball it's obstruction. I think saying there must be intent is too subjective.

I agree. I hate it when the refs in any sport are asked to decide what a player is "intending" to do. There is no way of knowing, all they know is what actually happened, not what the guy was thinking.

Just to add to the second bolded point, it is without the ball or while not making play on the ball. That last part is what allows catchers to block the plate and 2nd basemen and shortstops blocking 2nd on a stolen base attempt. Once that ball got by him, he was no longer making a play on the ball.

When I went to umpire school down in Florida, the obstruction rule was one of the harder lessons for the instructors to get through to us. We would argue about it with them, the main argument being "If the fielder makes a play on the ball and it gets by him, it may be physically impossible for the fielder to get out of the runners way...he can't just disappear!" To which they would reply, "he needs to catch the ball or get out of the way. Do you guys want to write the rules or learn how they should be applied?"

 

[apachef4]

That was my thinking on the whole situation.

What are your thoughts on how the World Series would have been affected if Matheny protested the call in game one? Do you think they would have won or do you think that it would have caused too much of a logistical problem (with travel and TV) for the MLB to replay the game from the first inning?

Again, I don't see what there would have been to protest. It was a judgement call. Sure, the umpires getting together to change a call like that is almost unheard of, but it's not against the rules. The 2nd base umpire just went with the judgement of his teammates instead of his own...still judgement though, and they got it right.

As for protests in general in the World Series? Yeah, I don't see them ever upholding one if it happens, unless it is the most egregious violation of the rules we can think of. Hell, they don't even uphold any of them in the regular season, much less the playoffs.

 

[redseat]

That was my thinking on the whole situation.

What are your thoughts on how the World Series would have been affected if Matheny protested the call in game one? Do you think they would have won or do you think that it would have caused too much of a logistical problem (with travel and TV) for the MLB to replay the game from the first inning?

Don't think anything would happen. 5 other umpires saw the same thing. Now I never thought it would have been able to be overturned that's for sure...I mean my understanding about the "in the glove" and "transferring" is completely up the determination of the umpire. Which he thought he had the ball and was trying to get it out of his glove. Clearly he did not but that ump saw it that way.

This call and the obstruction call will certainly be "worked on" over this off season

 

[uncfan103]

Again, I don't see what there would have been to protest. It was a judgement call. Sure, the umpires getting together to change a call like that is almost unheard of, but it's not against the rules. The 2nd base umpire just went with the judgement of his teammates instead of his own...still judgement though, and they got it right.

As for protests in general in the World Series? Yeah, I don't see them ever upholding one if it happens, unless it is the most egregious violation of the rules we can think of. Hell, they don't even uphold any of them in the regular season, much less the playoffs.

My understanding was that it was against the rules. It's a judgment call but his decision is suppose to be final, but it wasn't. Not suppose to confer with other umpires unless it's a appealed, which can only happen on rule miss-applications. It was not a problem with the rules but they asked the other umpires for help anyway. That's where I was getting at because it's against the rules.

And, yeah that's what I was thinking too about it not being upheld.

 

[uncfan103]

Don't think anything would happen. 5 other umpires saw the same thing. Now I never thought it would have been able to be overturned that's for sure...I mean my understanding about the "in the glove" and "transferring" is completely up the determination of the umpire. Which he thought he had the ball and was trying to get it out of his glove. Clearly he did not but that ump saw it that way.

This call and the obstruction call will certainly be "worked on" over this off season

I agree, the game one call should be worked on. If they change the obstruction rule I won't be surprised, but I think it'll be the wrong decision. There's a very logical reason the rule was implemented in the first place.

 

[anotheridiot]

that picture says 1000 words. Could Middlebrooks have gotten up with both of craigs hands on him?

clearly looks inside the baseline. Awesome play by the left fielder getting to the ball that fast.

 

[redseat]

I agree, the game one call should be worked on. If they change the obstruction rule I won't be surprised, but I think it'll be the wrong decision. There's a very logical reason the rule was implemented in the first place.

It's just worded weirdly so I don't think the obstruction rule will be changed because how often has it ever been called? I've never seen it... Except maybe the catcher v hitter obstruction, which even that is rarely called.

 

[redseat]

that picture says 1000 words. Could Middlebrooks have gotten up with both of craigs hands on him?

clearly looks inside the baseline. Awesome play by the left fielder getting to the ball that fast.

The way the rule is written today that doesn't matter. As crappy as that is... does not matter. Craig probably could have held Middlebrooks down and the call still wouldn't have changed.

 

[broncosmitty]

that picture says 1000 words. Could Middlebrooks have gotten up with both of craigs hands on him?

clearly looks inside the baseline. Awesome play by the left fielder getting to the ball that fast.

I did respect the hustle to back up the base. Solid effort, good throw. But all for naught.

 

[apachef4]

My understanding was that it was against the rules. It's a judgment call but his decision is suppose to be final, but it wasn't. Not suppose to confer with other umpires unless it's a appealed, which can only happen on rule miss-applications. It was not a problem with the rules but they asked the other umpires for help anyway. That's where I was getting at because it's against the rules.

And, yeah that's what I was thinking too about it not being upheld.

It is not a rule. An umpire can ask for help from another umpire at any time, for just about any reason. The other umpires can even go to that umpire and say, "hey, you missed that, you should change it." The latter part never happens though, as it breaks just about all umpire etiquette. But they can do it, even if they never do.

 

[uncfan103]

It's just worded weirdly so I don't think the obstruction rule will be changed because how often has it ever been called? I've never seen it... Except maybe the catcher v hitter obstruction, which even that is rarely called.

It happens at second base on overthrows on steals, I've seen it at lower levels where a first baseman will accidentally get in the way of a runner rounding first.