When Gomes hit his HR I yelled “Oh shit!!”
When Uehara picked off Wong to end the game I yelled “Oh shit!!!”
Two “oh shit!” moments = good game.
I’m OK with bizarre. Number one priority is Red Sox win. Number two is at least six games (accomplished). Number three is memorable (accomplished).
I was the only Red Sox fan at parties for the last two games. Last night I was a a halloween party. I dressed as a Cardinals fan while my wife (native St. Louisan ) dressed as a Boston fan. Confused the hell out of the guy who tried to high five me after the final play; my wife stood up and high fived him behind me. Not happy with the outcome, but the look on his face was completely worth it.
Tonight I really had no idea what happened at first. That was rather sudden. I’ll take it, though.
I agree with “bizarre.” There have been a few weird happenings. Tonight’s was an odd way to end a game, but it worked for the Red Sox.
I’m neither a Red Sox nor a Cardinals supporter during the regular season, but since my Blue Jays play in the AL, I’m leaning towards the Red Sox in the World Series. Now that the series is tied, I’ll be on the edge of my seat.
Go Red Sox!
ISTM, most others are ignoring the “very likely” words, frankly. You as well, when you say, “the scenario is more or less word for word what the rule describes as being obstruction,” without acknowledging that it also provides a shapeless option for the ump to not call it. You then ask for specifics where the rules provided none, nothing other than the option not to call it. I understand what the rest of the words mean, but my point is (and no one has refuted it) that the situation described does not necessarily mean obstruction occurred, not if the ump sees a reasonable exception. And that’s based on the words in the rules, if “very likely” also means “not always.” And it does. The rest, then, is necessarily judgment and opinion as to what is an acceptable exception, since the rules don’t provide any guidance.
Don’t know how else to explain my reasoning. The fielder had no opportunity to get out of the way. He didn’t “continue to lie there” so much as he “refused to vaporize.” For me (apparently only for me :D) that is reason enough not to call this obstruction.
later, i remembered that poor mr kong was running for mr craig. who injured his foot running for home in the odd obstruction out of the night before.
wonder what baseball hijinks are in store for tonight?!?
Whether or not the fielder had an opportunity to get out of the way is irrelevant to whether the baserunner’s path to the plate was obstructed. Yet again I say, it’s not a foul called against the fielder, it’s a call that the baserunner’s path was obstructed.
Back to game three: the obstruction call was the best thing that could have happened to the home plate umpire, since it got everybody arguing about a call that’s defensible and plausible within the rules. If the obstruction hadn’t happened, we’d be talking about the strike zone that extended somewhere to the outside edge of the batters box and awarding a player first base when they made no effort to avoid a pitch; neither of those were defensible or plausible and the hit batsman scored a run, so it was just as crucial as the obstruction call, but much much worse.
Ortiz legging out an infield single didn’t warrant an “Oh Shit?” When was the last time that happened. The Clinton administration?
Yeah, sorry, the call was right. The run was the price for Salty’s bad throw and Middlebrooks’ whiffing on it. No, it wasn’t his fault he couldn’t get out of Craig’s way, but it wasn’t Craig’s fault he was obstructed (which he was, intentionally or not), either. It’s tough on Middlebrooks, yes, but calling Craig out would have been tough on him. The rules do give absolute right of way to the runner.
MLB has announced the rule will be reviewed with an eye toward adding intent, which is fine, but that only makes the call *more *judgment-based.
Then you don’t understand the rule. You can’t “explain your reasoning,” since the “reason” you give has nothing whatever to do with whether obstruction should be called.
If you agree with that, then I fail to see how you can conclude that fact the fielder was unable to get out of the way is relevant to whether or not instruction is called. It doesn’t matter whether he is deliberately trying to obstruct the runner, or keeled over dead of a heart attack on the base path. All that matters is that the runner is impeded.
As has been said, the call doesn’t have to do with the reason for the obstruction (other than whether or not the fielder was in the act of fielding the ball). It merely compensates for the fact that the runner’s path was blocked.
Right. But if he HAD vaporized what would have happened? The run would have scored. So, the rule just makes things as though he had been able to vaporize. There isn’t really a penalty there against Middlebrooks as much as there is the removal of an unintended penalty against Craig.
The way this series is going, I half expect it to end on an extra innings balk.
By the DH who is brought in to pitch the 14th.
Papi tagging up and beating the throw to home was pretty impressive too. He slid into base so many times last night, the seat of his uniform was torn out.
I believe the “not always” would come into play where there is no contact. There doesn’t have to be contact in order for the fielder to impede the runner. The fielder could reposition himself, moved partially in the way of the runner but move aside before any contact is made. The runner could hesitate slightly or he may keep running hard but step a bit to the side and keep going. The umpire could rule that the fielder’s actions did not slow down the runner and decide it is not obstruction.
When the fielder without the ball made physical contact with the runner, though, it was cut and dry. It had to be obstruction.
It’s still not as bad as getting caught stealing to end game 7 and the World Series when your team is down by just a run.*
*Babe Ruth, 1926, Yankees against…the Cardinals.
So basically this year’s World Series winner will be the team that manages to be slightly less terrible.
This shit is aging me.
As a Red Sox fan, I was, of course, pissed with the obstruction call. Had the tables been turned, however, I’d probably want it called for my guys. I’m biased. Mike Lupica (Yankees fan, so no real biased there) said it was a bad call because the “spirit” of the rule was ignored wherein the baserunner should have responsibility to take a clear path to the next base if it exists.
The fact that MLB is going to review the rule in the offseason says that was a wonky play.
As for the pick off, I was wondering why the hell Napoli was even holding the runner there. His run didn’t matter and there were two outs, so it’s not like they needed to turn a DP. I had visions of Beltran smacking one through that hole and then Holliday going yard. But hey, I’ll take the pick off.
I felt like pleading, “Okay, but can we let Beltran finish the at-bat, just so we can see what would have happened?”
I think I disagree.
Stealing second when down by two runs, with two out, doesn’t help your team at all – it doesn’t matter if you score unless the current batter also scores, and there is almost no imaginable situation where you being on second instead of first helps him score. Even having a good lead off first doesn’t help your team much at all, so not worth even a tiny bit of risk.
In contrast, stealing second when down by a run definitely helps your team [/waves at Dave Roberts], enough that its’ worth some level of risk-- statheads say trying to steal second is generally close to a break-even proposition; I suspect with two out and down by a run it gets to be winning odds.
At least with an average to above average runner; maybe with Babe Ruth, the odds really aren’t quite there. But at least there is some potential benefit, even if odds are low with Babe lumbering in; there’s still zero benefit to having a lead off first with two out down two runs.