Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
I would have liked to have been a fan before my birth, but it just wasn't happening.
I would have liked to have been a fan before my birth, but it just wasn't happening.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Perhaps you were in another life? You would have enjoyed an entire infield one year making the All-Star team, Bob Gibson striking out 17 in a first game of a World Series, etc. I am not sure any team was involved in a 7 game series each time they got there.
Perhaps you were in another life? You would have enjoyed an entire infield one year making the All-Star team, Bob Gibson striking out 17 in a first game of a World Series, etc. I am not sure any team was involved in a 7 game series each time they got there.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
The Red Sox lost in game 7 in 1986, 75, 67 and 46. They won the 1912 series in 8 games (one was an 11-inning tie) and won 4-straight to win the first World Series in 8 games in 1903. But 1915 and 16 were only 5 games and 1918 was 6.
The Red Sox lost in game 7 in 1986, 75, 67 and 46. They won the 1912 series in 8 games (one was an 11-inning tie) and won 4-straight to win the first World Series in 8 games in 1903. But 1915 and 16 were only 5 games and 1918 was 6.
hockeyplayer1015
Capt
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Interference results in an out
Obstruction was the right call though... As soon as I saw it live, I had Obstruction and a one base award coming...
Interference results in an out
Obstruction was the right call though... As soon as I saw it live, I had Obstruction and a one base award coming...
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
My dad is a youth baseball coach and he would be screaming his head off at Salty. Sox were lucky to get the one out. He should've ate it and tried to get the next guy.
My dad is a youth baseball coach and he would be screaming his head off at Salty. Sox were lucky to get the one out. He should've ate it and tried to get the next guy.
hockeyplayer1015
Capt
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Potato, potahto. Tomato, Tomahto.
Interference results in an out
Obstruction was the right call though... As soon as I saw it live, I had Obstruction and a one base award coming...
Potato, potahto. Tomato, Tomahto.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
The issue I have with the call is that Middlebrooks is well away from the basepath, and the runner gets up and runs on the grass...How the hell can it be obstruction if he's out of the basepath?
Oh and also Joyce not even looking at the obstruction but calling it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXjlt0BIgAAzawt.jpg
The issue I have with the call is that Middlebrooks is well away from the basepath, and the runner gets up and runs on the grass...How the hell can it be obstruction if he's out of the basepath?
Oh and also Joyce not even looking at the obstruction but calling it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXjlt0BIgAAzawt.jpg
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Does this mean Bill Simmons gets another 10,000 words?
Does this mean Bill Simmons gets another 10,000 words?
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
I'm biased but had the same thought. Looked more like a soccer player trying to get a PK call; instead of running straight home he runs over the guy on the ground.
Agree on Sox working on holding the **** ball. Did they learn nothing from the other night?
I'm biased but had the same thought. Looked more like a soccer player trying to get a PK call; instead of running straight home he runs over the guy on the ground.
Agree on Sox working on holding the **** ball. Did they learn nothing from the other night?
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
There's a replay out there that shows the runner didn't even trip as a result of middlebrooks' attempt to trip him. It happened before that. With joyce not looking...tough to take.
Were they expecting middlebrooks to roll out of the way?
There's a replay out there that shows the runner didn't even trip as a result of middlebrooks' attempt to trip him. It happened before that. With joyce not looking...tough to take.
Were they expecting middlebrooks to roll out of the way?
P
Priceless
Guest
gounhwildcats
Go Cats!! Beat Maine!!!
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
A couple of people have already said that it was the correct call and they are right. Here is the obstruction rule from the MLB rule book:
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: 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: an infielder dives at a ground Rule 2.00
20
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.
It doesn't matter what the runner did when he got up or where he started his run. It doesn't matter whether Middlebrooks intended to impede him or not. There's only three factors in determining whether obstruction occurred: a) was the fielder in possession of the ball (no); was he in the act of fielding the ball (no); did he impede the runners progress (yes). If ever there was a classic, text book case of obstruction, this was it.
A couple of people have already said that it was the correct call and they are right. Here is the obstruction rule from the MLB rule book:
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: 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: an infielder dives at a ground Rule 2.00
20
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.
It doesn't matter what the runner did when he got up or where he started his run. It doesn't matter whether Middlebrooks intended to impede him or not. There's only three factors in determining whether obstruction occurred: a) was the fielder in possession of the ball (no); was he in the act of fielding the ball (no); did he impede the runners progress (yes). If ever there was a classic, text book case of obstruction, this was it.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
The issue I have is "delays the progress of the runner".
When the whole basepath is open I struggle to say he delayed the progress of the runner. I know, the runner sets his own basepath and blahblahblah. When you're on the grass, It's really hard to blame the fielder.
Let's say there's 1st and 2nd Nobody out, and the corner infielders are in on the grass to protect against a bunt. A ball is smoked past the third baseman, who dives to try and get it but misses. By this rule, the runner going to third should run onto the grass, trip over the infielder, so he's awarded home.
Right?
The issue I have is "delays the progress of the runner".
When the whole basepath is open I struggle to say he delayed the progress of the runner. I know, the runner sets his own basepath and blahblahblah. When you're on the grass, It's really hard to blame the fielder.
Let's say there's 1st and 2nd Nobody out, and the corner infielders are in on the grass to protect against a bunt. A ball is smoked past the third baseman, who dives to try and get it but misses. By this rule, the runner going to third should run onto the grass, trip over the infielder, so he's awarded home.
Right?
gounhwildcats
Go Cats!! Beat Maine!!!
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
All that is fine for off season discussion by the competition committee, if they are looking at changing the wording of the rule, but it has nothing to do with the current rule as it is written. The runner got up to run home, the fielder who was no longer in the act of fielding the ball, and was not in possession of it impeded him. That's all the umpire has to consider when making an obstruction call. The only aspect of the obstruction rule that is a judgement call on the umps part is whether the fielder was in the act of fielding the ball, which Middlebrooks clearly wasn't. There is nothing in the rule about what the runner does or does not try to do.
Oh, and as I pointed out to one other person who made a similar comment, what you cited was the example given not the actual rule itself. That is just an example, it has nothing to do with the actual rule.
All that is fine for off season discussion by the competition committee, if they are looking at changing the wording of the rule, but it has nothing to do with the current rule as it is written. The runner got up to run home, the fielder who was no longer in the act of fielding the ball, and was not in possession of it impeded him. That's all the umpire has to consider when making an obstruction call. The only aspect of the obstruction rule that is a judgement call on the umps part is whether the fielder was in the act of fielding the ball, which Middlebrooks clearly wasn't. There is nothing in the rule about what the runner does or does not try to do.
Oh, and as I pointed out to one other person who made a similar comment, what you cited was the example given not the actual rule itself. That is just an example, it has nothing to do with the actual rule.
- Status