MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

[J.D.]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

someone asked joyce what middlebrooks should have done and he basically said "get out of the way quicker". the next question should have been, what could he have done to get out of the way quicker?

there's no doubt in my mind he was gonna try to trip up the runner, but they're saying even if he played dead and the runner tripped over him...it's still obstruction? that's a dumb rule if that's the case. there was not enough time for middlebrooks to get out of the way. and even if he tried, he probably still would have "obstructed" the runner.

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

someone asked joyce what middlebrooks should have done and he basically said "get out of the way quicker". the next question should have been, what could he have done to get out of the way quicker?

there's no doubt in my mind he was gonna try to trip up the runner, but they're saying even if he played dead and the runner tripped over him...it's still obstruction? that's a dumb rule if that's the case. there was not enough time for middlebrooks to get out of the way. and even if he tried, he probably still would have "obstructed" the runner.

From your comment I'm pretty sure you get this without me pointing it out, but the rule says nothing of intent. Intent of the fielder has nothing to do with it. Intent of the base runner has nothing to do with it. It is simply: is the fielder in the act of fielding the ball, is he in possession of the ball, did he impede the runners progress? In this case the answers are no, no and yes. It is obstruction. Does the wording of the rule bear looking at? Maybe. But let me ask you this. Are you confident enough in MLB umpires to add yet one more judgement call into the rule book? Do you want Angel Hernandez or C B Bucknor having to make anymore judgement calls than they absolutely have to?

 

[Priceless]

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.

What does the rule book say about running outside the baseline?

 

[lugnut92]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Well, that happened. I was listening on the radio. It was a roller coaster of emotions.

[b]WORLD SERIES[/b]
-----------------------------------------------
|   |KRAPB|Game|  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  ||CHAMP|
|---------------------------------------------|
|STL|145.3|48.8|xxxxx|23.79|[B]24.37[/B]|18.73||[B]66.9%[/B]|
|BOS|152.6|51.2|xxxxx|xxxxx|13.44|19.67||33.1%|
-----------------------------------------------

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

From your comment I'm pretty sure you get this without me pointing it out, but the rule says nothing of intent. Intent of the fielder has nothing to do with it. Intent of the base runner has nothing to do with it. It is simply: is the fielder in the act of fielding the ball, is he in possession of the ball, did he impede the runners progress? In this case the answers are no, no and yes. It is obstruction. Does the wording of the rule bear looking at? Maybe. But let me ask you this. Are you confident enough in MLB umpires to add yet one more judgement call into the rule book? Do you want Angel Hernandez or C B Bucknor having to make anymore judgement calls than they absolutely have to?

I have a feeling this is one of those extremely rare cases where a specific play will cause the powers that be to look at the wording of a rule. I certainly can't remember any play like this where it could have been a point of discussion.

That said, was Middlebrooks a little ways off the baseline? Yep. But Craig never made any obvious movement that would tell me he purposely ran over to where Middlebrooks was. He was looking back at the ball until he was basically stepping on him. And his legs were 2, MAYBE 3 feet from the baseline.

Unfortunate that it had to be a "controversial" (probably better wording is, it's a shame it wasn't a CLEAN hit to win it) ending, but most people I've heard feel it was absolutely the correct call, just a very weird way to end a game.

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

What does the rule book say about running outside the baseline?

It has nothing to do with this rule, or there would be a reference to it, ie. except in case of running outside of the baseline, or see exception, subsection so and so. Look, I'm not a Cardinals fan, and when I saw the play my immediate reaction to the play was that that couldn't be obstruction. He had no intent to obstruct. But that has nothing to do with it. And the baseline thing is a stretch at best. He got up to to run and was immediately impeded. It's not like he had taken a few steps. Just as there was no time for Middlebrooks to get up and out of the way, there was not time for the base runner to get into the established baseline. The obstruction occurred almost simultaneously with the beginning of Craig's run. However, absolutely none of that has anything to do with the rule as it is written.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

The whole basepath was open if you expect him to run around the 3rd baseman lying on the ground.

 

[pirate]

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.

Like the neighborhood play on a double play? Is that in the rules?

It can be fun to argue this or that about any call, but don't use the "well, it is in the rules" unless the rules are followed 100% of the time...the neighborhood play brings judgment into the equation...and so does "did Beltran attempt to get out of the way of the pitch?"

If judgment is part of the rule book, or is allowed to supersede the rule book, then I submit the ump should not have called obstruction, using his judgment that the runner cannot veer into a player, prone or otherwise, for the purpose of breaking up a fielding attempt or drawing an obstruction call and or the play at home was sufficiently obvious that the runner wouldn't have beaten the throw regardless of human speed bumps.

either way, the call is done...just pointing out how the "but, the rules, the rules" refrain brings into question the sporadic adherence to the rule book which is evident throughout the game...

 

[Priceless]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

It has nothing to do with this rule, or there would be a reference to it, ie. except in case of running outside of the baseline, or see exception, subsection so and so. Look, I'm not a Cardinals fan, and when I saw the play my immediate reaction to the play was that that couldn't be obstruction. He had no intent to obstruct. But that has nothing to do with it. And the baseline thing is a stretch at best. He got up to to run and was immediately impeded. It's not like he had taken a few steps. Just as there was no time for Middlebrooks to get up and out of the way, there was not time for the base runner to get into the established baseline. The obstruction occurred almost simultaneously with the beginning of Craig's run. However, absolutely none of that has anything to do with the rule as it is written.

That's stupid. If I'm on first and there's a base ht to right I shouldn't even bother trying to run to third, I should touch second, find the SS and run into him and be awarded third base. That way I don't risk having a RF with a cannon throw me out at third.

If I'm at bat and hit a ground ball, I should turn around and run into the catcher. Obstruction, I get first base.

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Like the neighborhood play on a double play? Is that in the rules?

It can be fun to argue this or that about any call, but don't use the "well, it is in the rules" unless the rules are followed 100% of the time...the neighborhood play brings judgment into the equation...and so does "did Beltran attempt to get out of the way of the pitch?"

If judgment is part of the rule book, or is allowed to supersede the rule book, then I submit the ump should not have called obstruction, using his judgment that the runner cannot veer into a player, prone or otherwise, for the purpose of breaking up a fielding attempt or drawing an obstruction call and or the play at home was sufficiently obvious that the runner wouldn't have beaten the throw regardless of human speed bumps.

either way, the call is done...just pointing out how the "but, the rules, the rules" refrain brings into question the sporadic adherence to the rule book which is evident throughout the game...

That's all wonderful, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. The umpire made the call and it's the right call based on what the rule says. If you wanted to see a text book case of obstruction as it is defined in the rule book, this play fit it to a tee. And in fact the example cited in the rule book could have been describing this exact play. How the umpires decide to apply the rule book on a play by play basis is always subject for debate, and if you want to argue whether the umpires should have applied the rule on this particular play, then have at 'er. What I originally stated, and continue to state is that in this particular case, the umpires call was not wrong. I'm making no comments on the validity of the rule, whether it should or should not allow for more umpire judgement in order to make it. The rule is written the way it is, the umpire made his call based on what happened, and the call was absolutely right.

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

That's stupid. If I'm on first and there's a base ht to right I shouldn't even bother trying to run to third, I should touch second, find the SS and run into him and be awarded third base. That way I don't risk having a RF with a cannon throw me out at third.

If I'm at bat and hit a ground ball, I should turn around and run into the catcher. Obstruction, I get first base.

And mares eat oats, and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy. None of that has anything to do with the play that actually happened. What did happen fits the rule perfectly, the umpire made the right call. And your suggestion that the player had time to get up and run in the established base line is absurd and clearly affected by who you happen to root for. Craig gets up, does not take one step and is impeded in his progress by a player that is not in possession of the ball, and is not in the act of fielding the ball. Obstruction, end of story.

The rule was almost certainly written the way it was, because it was taken into consideration that the base runner is not going to have time to get into the established base line. The example cited in the rule implies that, as well as the section on the only aspect of the judgment call of this rule.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

And mares eat oats, and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy. None of that has anything to do with the play that actually happened. What did happen fits the rule perfectly, the umpire made the right call. And your suggestion that the player had time to get up and run in the established base line is absurd and clearly affected by who you happen to root for. Craig gets up, does not take one step and is impeded in his progress by a player that is not in possession of the ball, and is not in the act of fielding the ball. Obstruction, end of story.

The rule was almost certainly written the way it was, because it was taken into consideration that the base runner is not going to have time to get into the established base line. The example cited in the rule implies that, as well as the section on the only aspect of the judgment call of this rule.

You have said it correctly and succinctily. It is the nature of fans of any team to look for a reason that a loss occured. The umpires in baseball have made unbelievable errors in the past-they have called players safe or out and replays have clearly shown that they missed the call. And yes, some of those have cost a team a win in the world series. (See 1985 at first base for a perfect example) But last night was not that kind of case. It was a call made that was a perfect example of a rule that has been used innumerable times during any season. Just the fact that it was the bottom of the ninth in a World Series game-does not change the rule and give the umpire any latitude. Exciting play-gives us all a lot to talk about but it is a done deal-every replay from every angle shows a textbook description of the interference rule as written. We move onto game 4 tonight-anyone questioning the choice of starting pitchers in anyway? if you are StL why are you not bringing back Wainright so that he has almost full rest if a game seven is necessary?

 

[walrus]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

someone asked joyce what middlebrooks should have done and he basically said "get out of the way quicker". the next question should have been, what could he have done to get out of the way quicker?

there's no doubt in my mind he was gonna try to trip up the runner, but they're saying even if he played dead and the runner tripped over him...it's still obstruction? that's a dumb rule if that's the case. there was not enough time for middlebrooks to get out of the way. and even if he tried, he probably still would have "obstructed" the runner.

I thought the whole obstruction call was made based on him kicking his legs up when the Cardinals runner tries to get up, without that I think the runner makes it home before the throw?

 

[Jon]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I love rules lawyers so much in sports. I really do. The strike zone is inconsistent all night and we're supposed to trust the umps to get a call right? You might be good at reading rule books, but fan psychology is another matter...

Why on earth did Salty throw to third? That's bothering me a lot more this morning.

 

[pirate]

That's all wonderful, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. The umpire made the call and it's the right call based on what the rule says. If you wanted to see a text book case of obstruction as it is defined in the rule book, this play fit it to a tee. And in fact the example cited in the rule book could have been describing this exact play. How the umpires decide to apply the rule book on a play by play basis is always subject for debate, and if you want to argue whether the umpires should have applied the rule on this particular play, then have at 'er. What I originally stated, and continue to state is that in this particular case, the umpires call was not wrong. I'm making no comments on the validity of the rule, whether it should or should not allow for more umpire judgement in order to make it. The rule is written the way it is, the umpire made his call based on what happened, and the call was absolutely right.

All rules are written the way they are and on a double play the same rule is interpreted 2 different ways at 2 different bases within 2 seconds.

The call in question could have gone either way and the other team would have at least an argument.

The point I'm trying to make is that if rules are not uniformly applied or interpreted, and are even 'un-written' at times, then explaining that a call was "as the rule was written" is not a defense of the call. Dismissing all thoughts to the contrary because they don't follow the letter of the law is not a safe harbor.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Why on earth did Salty throw to third? That's bothering me a lot more this morning.

Exactly... there was no play at third.

 

[J.D.]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Walrus, the umps basically said even if middlebrooks just played dead and the bozo runner still tripped himself (as he did last night)...it still would have been obstruction. To that I would say you cannot have a rule that would consider last night's play obstruction. You shouldn't be able to say well he just beefs to get out of the way quicker when it was physically impossible in this situation.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I thought the whole obstruction call was made based on him kicking his legs up when the Cardinals runner tries to get up, without that I think the runner makes it home before the throw?

I think you're correct here Wally. If Middlebrooks doesn't lift his legs, Obstruction is not called, even if the guy does trip over him, IMO.

What most folks don't understand is that the Obstruction is NOT an automatic base awarded to the runner. If he had been thrown out by ten feet, he would more than likely been called out. Given that in this play the guy was thrown out by about a step, he more than likely would have been safe if he had not tripped over the fielder, hence, in the umpires judgement, he would have beaten the throw without the obstruction.

IMO, the call was correct and the judgement was correct. Sucks to lose a game like that, but I have no problem with the call.

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Walrus, the umps basically said even if middlebrooks just played dead and the bozo runner still tripped himself (as he did last night)...it still would have been obstruction. To that I would say you cannot have a rule that would consider last night's play obstruction. You shouldn't be able to say well he just beefs to get out of the way quicker when it was physically impossible in this situation.

By the letter of the rule, that is correct. But in my opinion (and I bet the umpire's, but they won't say it), if Middlebrooks doesn't lift his legs and the guy trips, they don't call the obstruction.
Middlebrooks legs lifting off the ground caused the guy to trip... whether he intended to or not, he obstructed the runner.
If he doesn't lift his legs... I don't think obstruction is called.

 

[J.D.]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Fivehole there is one angle of the replay that clearly shows middlebrooks lifting his legs had nothing to dowith the runner tripping. That being said, I agree with your overall point. They can talk all they want but if he doesn't lift his legs I bet they don't call it.