Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:20 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Fun fact
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
You can't spell "obstruction" without "Boston"

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:59 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1097
It was the right call on that play, per the rules, but to me it is a lot like the 'tuck rule'. How many times do you see a guy try and steal second base, the SS/2B cover the bag to receive the catchers throw, the ball go into CF, and the runner attempt to get up to run to 3rd only to be tied up with the defender, and eventually retreat back to 2B after a few steps because he was tied up. Is this not the same thing? Can't recall ever seeing the runner be granted 3B due to obstruction, but in the above scenario it is the same thing as WS game 3, and by the second paragraph of the rule the runner should be granted 3B as the 2B/SS is no longer playing the ball once it is past them into CF.

The rule...

If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered in the act of fielding a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Dr. Phibes wrote:
It was the right call on that play, per the rules, but to me it is a lot like the 'tuck rule'. How many times do you see a guy try and steal second base, the SS/2B cover the bag to receive the catchers throw, the ball go into CF, and the runner attempt to get up to run to 3rd only to be tied up with the defender, and eventually retreat back to 2B after a few steps because he was tied up. Is this not the same thing? Can't recall ever seeing the runner be granted 3B due to obstruction, but in the above scenario it is the same thing as WS game 3, and by the second paragraph of the rule the runner should be granted 3B as the 2B/SS is no longer playing the ball once it is past them into CF.

The rule...

If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered in the act of fielding a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.


I've seen runners awarded a third base in your scenario plenty of times. It also comes into play during run downs where a runner will try to run into a fielder and draw an obstruction call.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
And, FWIW, Middlebrooks clearly lifted his legs just as Craig was getting ready to run home. I'm not saying that it was intentional or not. Didn't matter. Craig's progress was clearly obstructed and Joyce made the absolute right call.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:44 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1097
No. 9 wrote:
And, FWIW, Middlebrooks clearly lifted his legs just as Craig was getting ready to run home. I'm not saying that it was intentional or not. Didn't matter. Craig's progress was clearly obstructed and Joyce made the absolute right call.


Yeah, as I stated in my initial response, it was the right call. Maybe my mind is getting older and I'm more forgetful (quite possible), but I can't recall in the last few seasons seeing a Pirate EVER awarded 3rd on the scenario I listed and have seen dozens of times where the ball squirts into CF past the man covering and the runner is all tied up with that guy when he tries to stand up.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3708
Location: Economy, PA
Absolutely, it was clear cut. I don't see what the controversy was about.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:06 pm
Posts: 3414
Location: Westmoreland County Pennsylvania
It was obstruction...according to the rule. The only thing I question is how was Middlebrooks suppose to get out of the Craig's way? Middlebrooks was down and on the ground. Was he suppose to immediately roll out of the way so Craig had an clear path to HP? Could he have rolled out of the way in time so there would be no obstruction?

Judging from what I saw, Middlebrooks didn't have enough time to roll away while he was on the ground. According to the rule, Middlebrooks was screwed.

If I were Joe Torre, I'd have a review of all of the obstruction rules. Maybe there should some modifications?

_________________
Image...You can observe a lot by just watching. -Yogi Berra


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7311
Ralphie wrote:
I don't see what the controversy was about.


Because Boston lost?

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
If you read the rule carefully, there is a tad of wiggle room. The example provides as follows: "After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner. I've added the emphasis and focused on the words "very likely."

If the infielder dives at the ball, misses it and then lays flat on the ground in the field of play and the runner trips over him but does so after purposefully engaging with the fielder, it would not, IMO, meet the definition of obstruction. For example, if a SS dives for a ball in the hole and the runner goes out of his way to get tripped up by the fielder as he lays on the field, that would not meet the definition of obstruction.

On Saturday, Craig got right up and started home. Middlebrooks was directly between Craig and home plate. Craig would have had to make a conscious effort to avoid Middlebrooks and cause delay in his effort to score. He tripped over Middlebrooks' legs and he attempted to go home on the wild throw.

On another front, I'm not a big fan of the "two sets of rules" that are advocated in sports. For example, if a foul is committed by a defender in basketball in the 1st quarter and the defender engages in the same action with :02 left in the game . . . its still a foul. Pass interference is pass interference . . . whether its the first play of the game or the last play of the game. I don't agree with those who claim that "you can't make that call at the end of the game." Same with Saturday's game. Some of the Boston players seemed to be claiming that you can't call interference with the game on the line. Why not? Can you call a runner out for leaving too early on a tag up at the end of the game? Or . . . should the runner get to leave a little bit early simply because he's trying to score a run on a fly ball in the bottom of the ninth inning?

Was it a tough way to lose? You bet. But either (a) don't make a bad throw or (b) eat the ball with Kozma sitting on deck. Great chance that the game was going to extra innings. You make a horrendous throw into left field, force Middlebrooks to dive in front of a slow runner and you open the door to an interference/obstruction call. Pretty simple in my book. Have to take the risk of the good (throw out Craig at 3rd base and complete a double play) with the consequences of the bad.

Saltalamacchia gambled and lost.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Dr. Phibes wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
And, FWIW, Middlebrooks clearly lifted his legs just as Craig was getting ready to run home. I'm not saying that it was intentional or not. Didn't matter. Craig's progress was clearly obstructed and Joyce made the absolute right call.


Yeah, as I stated in my initial response, it was the right call. Maybe my mind is getting older and I'm more forgetful (quite possible), but I can't recall in the last few seasons seeing a Pirate EVER awarded 3rd on the scenario I listed and have seen dozens of times where the ball squirts into CF past the man covering and the runner is all tied up with that guy when he tries to stand up.


Dr. -
Another point to consider in your post involves the intent of the runner. I may be wrong but I believe that the umpire possesses the discretion to determine whether the runner intended to advance another base or, in the ordinary course of playing, would have advanced another base. For example, look at a situation where Russell Martin is stealing second base and the opposing catcher launches one into center field. If the center fielder was running towards second base to back up the play and the shortstop gets tangled up with Martin as Martin tries to get up, is it obstruction? I believe that it lies in the discretion of the umpire. Since Russell Martin would not likely advance a base in that situation, the ump can rule that no obstruction takes place. If, on the other hand, McCutchen was stealing and tried to pop right up and manifested an intent to advance to 3B, then I think that he'd get the extra base.

On Saturday, if Craig got up and looked towards LF and was edging towards home and he tripped without manifesting any intent to score, you've got a different situation. Instead, there was never any doubt . . . Craig got right up and was attempting to advance a base when he was tripped up. Craig wasn't sizing up the situation or deciding whether to run. His progress was undoubtedly impeded after he made that decision.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10762
I believe that Craig was unquestionably properly awarded home on the interference, but I believe that his hustle and effort made the difference.

I recall the situation where McCutchen was obstructed, but gave up running and was tagged out 15' in front of home plate. He was called out.

The umpires determined that the interference played no role in the outcome since Cutch stopped running.

Craig was out by an eyelash, so the interference was huge. If he jogs home, and is tagged out well in front of the plate, I think the result is different.

Do others recall the McCutchen/interference play, or am I having an aneurysm?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:00 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6301
Let's hope not.... 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:30 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1097
No. 9 wrote:
Dr. Phibes wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
And, FWIW, Middlebrooks clearly lifted his legs just as Craig was getting ready to run home. I'm not saying that it was intentional or not. Didn't matter. Craig's progress was clearly obstructed and Joyce made the absolute right call.


Yeah, as I stated in my initial response, it was the right call. Maybe my mind is getting older and I'm more forgetful (quite possible), but I can't recall in the last few seasons seeing a Pirate EVER awarded 3rd on the scenario I listed and have seen dozens of times where the ball squirts into CF past the man covering and the runner is all tied up with that guy when he tries to stand up.


Dr. -
Another point to consider in your post involves the intent of the runner. I may be wrong but I believe that the umpire possesses the discretion to determine whether the runner intended to advance another base or, in the ordinary course of playing, would have advanced another base. For example, look at a situation where Russell Martin is stealing second base and the opposing catcher launches one into center field. If the center fielder was running towards second base to back up the play and the shortstop gets tangled up with Martin as Martin tries to get up, is it obstruction? I believe that it lies in the discretion of the umpire. Since Russell Martin would not likely advance a base in that situation, the ump can rule that no obstruction takes place. If, on the other hand, McCutchen was stealing and tried to pop right up and manifested an intent to advance to 3B, then I think that he'd get the extra base.

On Saturday, if Craig got up and looked towards LF and was edging towards home and he tripped without manifesting any intent to score, you've got a different situation. Instead, there was never any doubt . . . Craig got right up and was attempting to advance a base when he was tripped up. Craig wasn't sizing up the situation or deciding whether to run. His progress was undoubtedly impeded after he made that decision.


Good calls No. 9. The intent of the runner is the key. If in my scenario the runner tries to pop up immediately and scramble to 3B finding himself tied up with the defender in the process, its almost a crap shoot at that point. Do you gamble and fully sprint to 3B knowing you have a good shot at being thrown out, hoping the umpire calls obstruction, or do you take 2 steps then head back to 2B knowing you will most likely get tossed out at 3B. The gamble isn't worth the risk as its a complete judgement call on the umps part and its better to live to run another play.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bucfan wrote:
I believe that Craig was unquestionably properly awarded home on the interference, but I believe that his hustle and effort made the difference.

I recall the situation where McCutchen was obstructed, but gave up running and was tagged out 15' in front of home plate. He was called out.

The umpires determined that the interference played no role in the outcome since Cutch stopped running.

Craig was out by an eyelash, so the interference was huge. If he jogs home, and is tagged out well in front of the plate, I think the result is different.


I generally agree but I'd point out that Jim Joyce called interference as soon as Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and stumbled to the ground. You can see Joyce pointing to Middlebrooks and calling interference even before Craig is standing back up and running towards home. So . . I'm not sure that the closeness of the play at home was a deciding factor. I agree that Craig hustling to get back up and efforting to try to score played a huge role in Joyce immediately calling interference. If there appeared to be any doubt in Craig's mind or hesitation on his part . . . much tougher call for the ump crew.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10762
No. 9 wrote:
I generally agree but I'd point out that Jim Joyce called interference as soon as Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and stumbled to the ground. You can see Joyce pointing to Middlebrooks and calling interference even before Craig is standing back up and running towards home.

True, but I don't think he can call the runner safe until the play continues and the results are known.

The runner was called safe by the home plate umpire. The play continued, and Craig was not "automatically" awarded home plate.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bucfan wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
I generally agree but I'd point out that Jim Joyce called interference as soon as Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and stumbled to the ground. You can see Joyce pointing to Middlebrooks and calling interference even before Craig is standing back up and running towards home.

True, but I don't think he can call the runner safe until the play continues and the results are known.

The runner was called safe by the home plate umpire. The play continued, and Craig was not "automatically" awarded home plate.


My understanding has always been that once an obstruction call is made, the runner is awarded the next base. I thought that Demuth's safe call was the result of Joyce calling obstruction and that is why Demuth made the safe sign and immediately pointed to Joyce. I just figured that, in the "heat of the action" and an incredibly loud crowd, the players continued to play it through.

Could be wrong . . it is now my lunchtime goal to search out that process while I nibble at my desk.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5903
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Bucfan is dead-on right:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TtZk_K ... on&f=false

I was of the same mind-set as Tejada.

Good call Bucfan. Very good call.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Fun fact
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10762
No. 9 wrote:
I was of the same mind-set as Tejada.

Good call Bucfan. Very good call.

I cheated since I saw this issue play out with the Pirates. :D

As mentioned, I saw this outcome happen with McCutchen, and the announcers explained that the play continues and the umpires make a judgment about whether or not the interference effected the outcome.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits