Ortiz at 1st thanks to the NL rules. This should be fun to watch.
heavens to betsy! what on earth?!!! how did that happen!
oy! a very odd red sox loss.
Hard to say that was the wrong the call, I would have to think, though I am prepared for the internet to prove me wrong.
I… don’t love that call but I kind of get it but I still don’t really like it, I like Salty making that throw less, I like Middlebrooks’s poor effort to block the throw even less, and I really hate that Pedroia’s completely studly game-saving play is going to get glossed over because of this. All without even getting into the ways that Farrell has had a fairly bad last week or so. Ugh. Rough, late night, and a rough way to lose.
The runner knocked Middlebrooks down, where was he supposed to go?
Whoa, Middlebrooks didn’t go to the ground with the intention of blocking the runner, but it’s false that the runner knocked him down.
Regardless, Middlebrooks raised his legs directly into the runner’s path. Whether or not *that’s *intentional, it’s clearly obstruction.
The error explanations for games 1 and 2 are good thanks.
Now maybe somebody can explain the strike zone in game 3 to me? Hell, I could have kept the Red Sox to four runs if I was getting those strike calls…
[Not to mention I could be a successful MLB hitter if I can wear body armor, intentionally lean into pitches so they hit me, and get awarded first base for it]
First off, I’m a Cardinal fan.
From the MLB rulebook, the definition and even a comment which is nearly describes what happened:
The rule is clear and unambiguous. I don’t think there was any intention to obstruct Craig nor do I know where else Middlebrooks could have gone to, but the rule doesn’t cover anything other than whether or not obstruction occurred.
By the way, how fucking crazy is it that the Red Sox didn’t intentionally walk Jay to get to Kozma? Is there any good reason for that decision?
Utterly embarrassing that it’s 2013 and MLB still does not have the rules and equipment in place to review a call that directly decided the outcome of a freakin’ World Series game. The only sporting body more populated by willful Luddites is FIFA.
If the “rules and equipment” were available how would that have changed the outcome of the game? Rules 2.00 and 7.06 are pretty clear. Obstruction does not require intent. The umpire made the correct call.
What about letting Workman bat in the 9th with Napoli available?! I mean GO CARDS, but that was a completely baffling decision by Farrell.
Oh, and Kozma taking strike two AND strike three with bases loaded, no outs and the pitcher coming up next? That, folks, is the worst at-bat in the history of the World Series.
I never suggested that it would change the outcome. It probably wouldn’t have, but that wasn’t my thought. I’m pissed off that a World Series game ended that way on a judgment call and there was nothing available to look at it again and be sure. Meanwhile every Sunday I watch the NFL double-check each touchdown. It was a rare call in a key situation in the pinnacle of the sport, what’s wrong with using video to confirm it? This call was almost certainly correct, but what if the next one isn’t?
it was the correct call.
it appears errors more than anything else will decide this series.
This. If Middlebrooks had just lain there, I don’t think obstruction should have been called. But then, Allen Craig would likely have got to Home plate sooner, and may have been safe anyway.
I take back everything almost everything I said. Looking at a close-up, slow-motion shot, it looks like Craig tripped over Middelbrooks’s butt, not his legs at all. And based on the rules, if Middlebrooks didn’t lift his legs, and Craig still tripped over him, it’s still obstruction.
About the only thing I can salvage from my post is that, if Craig hadn’t tripped over Middlebrooks, I think he would likely have been safe.
I don’t even know how replay would have helped, since the call was based on the umpire’s interpretation of “what would have happened if”. It’s impossible to know exactly how long it would have taken Craig to run to home if he hadn’t been tripped, but we can judge it approximately. The whole rule is based on subjectivity. I’m as big a proponent of replay as anyone, but this isn’t a case where it would have done any good.
I don’t think it was a horrible call, but I think it was wrong. It could have gone either way, I guess. Emphasis added:
“Very likely” means there’s room for judgment, so I don’t get all the “this was unambiguously the correct call” stuff.
“Very likely” means there are instances where it would not be obstruction, and if last night’s wasn’t an exception (a guy dives for a ball, has basically no opportunity to get up), then I don’t know what would be one. “Continues” is a key word, too, I think, that does imply a certain intent. But even if it didn’t, to me it guards against someone staying prone where he had an opportunity to get out of the way in time. I don’t see how the third baseman “continued” to lie on the ground, unless the rules require him to vaporize or something.
There’s room for judgment in this rule, and IMO, they applied an incorrect one. I think there is a spectrum of potential obstruction situations. At one end is a guy deliberately playing games, trying to obstruct. At the other end of the spectrum of potential obstructions is this situation. In my mind, there was ample room in that rule to not make the call, and that’s what should have occurred. Again, if the “very likely” words provide for exceptions, and last night’s wasn’t, I can’t picture what would be an exception. They might as well remove those words.
My interpretation of the rule and from seeing other obstruction calls is that there is no “mens rea” involved - you either obstruct or you do not, and if you obstruct, there is no defence that you didn’t mean to do it.
But the very example codified in the rule allows for exceptions, so it’s not simply “you either obstructed or you don’t,” I don’t think. The umpire needs to exercise judgment. IMO, a fielder who is prone from having attempted to field a ball and had no real chance to get the hell out of the way should not be considered to have obstructed. If the rule allows for exceptions, and that’s not one, what would be an allowable exception?