Red Mosquito

bullshit call, but can any of our players throw to 3rd base from home? FFS

The Argonaut wrote:Iffy call. Middlebrooks belongs there. Did he try to trip Craig on purpose, or was he just trying to stand up. Should Craig have been able to jump over him? They'll be talking abot it for a while.

I agree, Middlebrooks has the right to the ball? but apparently doesnt have a right to get up and go after the ball? or a right to stay where he fell when going for the ball? thats a tough call for the ump even, making that on the fly...
horrible ending to a great game. (not a horrible call, just a bad way to end a great game, it deserved a clean finish)

MattA75 wrote:bullshit call, but can any of our players throw to 3rd base from home? FFS

saltamacchia probably should've held on to the ball after tagging out the first runner, knowing there was a chance he'd chuck it into left field.

only the cardinals would get that call. if it was a red sox runner, they'd say he was out of the base path or something when the contact occured (which you could argue that craig was).

spike wrote:

MattA75 wrote:bullshit call, but can any of our players throw to 3rd base from home? FFS

saltamacchia probably should've held on to the ball after tagging out the first runner, knowing there was a chance he'd chuck it into left field.

only the cardinals would get that call. if it was a red sox runner, they'd say he was out of the base path or something when the contact occured (which you could argue that craig was).

not to mention he actually pushes Middlebrooks back to the ground? if A-Rod did that, hed have been called out for interfering with the fielder LOL

that was way too good of a game to end on that play... off setting penalties replay the pitch

Not the best call, but it shouldnt have happened because there was no need for Salty to throw that ball.

Intent doesn't matter with an obstruction call. You could tell Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and fell down. He's hobbled so he didn't get up as fast as he would have normally. My first impression was that Middlebrooks tried to trip him but on the replay it was clear it was unintentional. But again, that doesn't matter - intent doesn't matter.

That was a bizarre way to end a game but it was absolutely the right call. I hate to see a game end like that even as a Cardinals fan - it makes me a feel a bit dirty, even if my team won.

matt reeder wrote:Intent doesn't matter with an obstruction call. You could tell Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and fell down. He's hobbled so he didn't get up as fast as he would have normally. My first impression was that Middlebrooks tried to trip him but on the replay it was clear it was unintentional. But again, that doesn't matter - intent doesn't matter.

That was a bizarre way to end a game but it was absolutely the right call. I hate to see a game end like that even as a Cardinals fan - it makes me a feel a bit dirty, even if my team won.

being outside of the base path doesn't matter either, apparently.

spike wrote:

matt reeder wrote:Intent doesn't matter with an obstruction call. You could tell Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and fell down. He's hobbled so he didn't get up as fast as he would have normally. My first impression was that Middlebrooks tried to trip him but on the replay it was clear it was unintentional. But again, that doesn't matter - intent doesn't matter.

That was a bizarre way to end a game but it was absolutely the right call. I hate to see a game end like that even as a Cardinals fan - it makes me a feel a bit dirty, even if my team won.

being outside of the base path doesn't matter either, apparently.

He was rounding third base on a bang-bang play after he'd just slid into Middlebrooks, trying to beat the throw to third. The umps determined that he made his own path, and after watching several replays, he's on the inside of the base path, but still perfectly within his right to that spot. The play developed so fast he took the most direct path towards home. EDIT: He's also hobbled and still recovering from a severely sprained foot. His balance is terrible right now. He still would have been safe if he hadn't tripped. It's remarkable that the Red Sox were able to get a throw home that fast to throw him out, obstruction aside.

There shouldn't be any controversy on this play at all. It's a shitty way to end a game but the rule book is perfectly clear:

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 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.

numbers wrote:Not the best call, but it shouldnt have happened because there was no need for Salty to throw that ball.

The call was legit. It sucks, but it fit the rule. The real problem here was Salty.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

numbers wrote:Not the best call, but it shouldnt have happened because there was no need for Salty to throw that ball.

The call was legit. It sucks, but it fit the rule. The real problem here was Salty.

And if you take his ABs last night into account...Salty is becoming a real problem.

He's not hitting, so there's really no point in having him in there.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

numbers wrote:Not the best call, but it shouldnt have happened because there was no need for Salty to throw that ball.

The call was legit. It sucks, but it fit the rule. The real problem here was Salty.

Chud's right.

it's a completely stupid rule (there being no judgement, it just is what it is), it belies every ounce of common sense, and that press conference with the umpires was an embarrassment to the entire game of baseball ("well, Middlebrooks just needs to get out of the way")

so yes, technically they called the rule correctly...and now everyone realizes how stupid that rule is and it will be changed this offseason, after it's very likely altered the course of a World Series

and also, Saltalamacchia blows

MattA75 wrote:it's a completely stupid rule (there being no judgement, it just is what it is), it belies every ounce of common sense, and that press conference with the umpires was an embarrassment to the entire game of baseball ("well, Middlebrooks just needs to get out of the way")

so yes, technically they called the rule correctly...and now everyone realizes how stupid that rule is and it will be changed this offseason, after it's very likely altered the course of a World Series

Im sure this viewpoint has nothing to do with the fact the call went against the team that you chose to root for.

@SkitchP wrote:

MattA75 wrote:it's a completely stupid rule (there being no judgement, it just is what it is), it belies every ounce of common sense, and that press conference with the umpires was an embarrassment to the entire game of baseball ("well, Middlebrooks just needs to get out of the way")

so yes, technically they called the rule correctly...and now everyone realizes how stupid that rule is and it will be changed this offseason, after it's very likely altered the course of a World Series

Im sure this viewpoint has nothing to do with the fact the call went against the team that you chose to root for.

would I be as pissed? Probably not...doesn't change the fact that the rule sucks, the press conference after embarrassed the game, and this dumb rule has now affected the championship series of the sport

MattA75 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

MattA75 wrote:it's a completely stupid rule (there being no judgement, it just is what it is), it belies every ounce of common sense, and that press conference with the umpires was an embarrassment to the entire game of baseball ("well, Middlebrooks just needs to get out of the way")

so yes, technically they called the rule correctly...and now everyone realizes how stupid that rule is and it will be changed this offseason, after it's very likely altered the course of a World Series

Im sure this viewpoint has nothing to do with the fact the call went against the team that you chose to root for.

would I be as pissed? Probably not...doesn't change the fact that the rule sucks, the press conference after embarrassed the game, and this dumb rule has now affected the championship series of the sport

It's a totally required rule. Baserunners have to avoid interfering with a batted ball, defenders have to avoid interfering with a baserunner.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:Iffy call. Middlebrooks belongs there. Did he try to trip Craig on purpose, or was he just trying to stand up. Should Craig have been able to jump over him? They'll be talking abot it for a while.

I agree, Middlebrooks has the right to the ball? but apparently doesnt have a right to get up and go after the ball? or a right to stay where he fell when going for the ball? thats a tough call for the ump even, making that on the fly...
horrible ending to a great game. (not a horrible call, just a bad way to end a great game, it deserved a clean finish)

If he's truly trying to get up, why are his legs, which were previously on the ground, all of a sudden going up?? I imagine it's pretty hard to stand up when you put your feet in the air...

i thought he clearly put his legs up to hinder the runner

spike wrote:

matt reeder wrote:Intent doesn't matter with an obstruction call. You could tell Craig tripped over Middlebrooks and fell down. He's hobbled so he didn't get up as fast as he would have normally. My first impression was that Middlebrooks tried to trip him but on the replay it was clear it was unintentional. But again, that doesn't matter - intent doesn't matter.

That was a bizarre way to end a game but it was absolutely the right call. I hate to see a game end like that even as a Cardinals fan - it makes me a feel a bit dirty, even if my team won.

being outside of the base path doesn't matter either, apparently.

He wasn't outside the basepath. Watch again. Line it up with the basepath to home. 1/2 his body is inline. Any part of your body is in the basepath and it's legal.

Btw, you can run outside the basepath without penalty, as long as there isn't a play being made on you (or you aren't interfering with the play, which he wasn't).

Peeps wrote:i thought he clearly put his legs up to hinder the runner

Ditto.