Support NeoGAF

[Ninja Scooter]

How was he suppose to get up though.?
That's my problem with the rulling, if it was intentional, then sure! However, it wasn't. He tripped and couldn't get u. They should rewrite that rule.
I'm okay with the lose, it's sad, but we deserved to lose that game. John Farrell manged it horrible, and salty shouldn't have thrown it.

It doesn't have to be intentional. Dem's the rules.

 

[Enron]

MLB Tonight just explained the rule.

Rule 2.0's example is almost EXACTLY what happened.

 

[snack]

I am not too good with the baseball rules, but does the majority of gaf think that call was legit?

 

[cashman]

Middlebrooks should have came off the bag and made a play on the ball. He would have saved a bad throw.

Yeah that's true, but its tough to do that when you're trying to make a play

 

[rando14]

I am not too good with the baseball rules, but does the majority of gaf think that call was legit?

It was legit.

 

[zychi]

geez, FINALLY we agree.

Before he "trips"

Inside the baseline, no one forced him to go to home, and he went backwards from third, shouldn't he have to touch the bag again before taking off for home?

Like if a runner touches second, runs pass second, and wants to go back to first, he has to touch second.

It's a clusterfuck that the umps got wrong. Craig doesn't score even without the flop

Even if Middlebrooks tries to get out of the way, Craig is holding him down.

 

[BolognaSoup]

What is this?

 

[Enron]

.

Rule 2.00 OBSTRUCTION
OBSTRUCTION

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.

It's a clusterfuck that the umps got wrong.

The rule is right there!

 

[vikki]

What is this?

Rex's secret weapon.

 

[RadarScope1]

Not sure why I haven't been in this thread before now but - wow what a game. My butthole was clinched so tight I won't shit for three days.

BTW, intent doesn't matter on obstruction according to the rule so it was just an insanely weird bit if bad luck for the Sox. But it's on Ferrell and Salty. He should never have thrown the ball to third.

 

[Square Triangle]

 

[lucius]

Yeah all middlebrooks had to do was not raise his feet/back legs the guy would have still been out at the plate. I have seen obstruction called on less than that, just never in playoffs.

Boston can still win 3 in a row, I defnitely would not count this team out.

 

[ReMaKe]

It doesn't have to be intentional. Dem's the rules.

That's my point.
They should change that rulling, make it "If intentionally..".
Make it where, the player(s) go back to their respective base. In this case, instead of being safe at home, he goes back to third.
It was the right call, but you never wanna see the game end like that.

 

[ISOM]

That play should of been how the world series ended and how boston lost just so the pain for them is that much greater.

 

[RadarScope1]

MLB Tonight just explained the rule.

Rule 2.0's example is almost EXACTLY what happened.

Yup. Thanks for quoting the rule.

 

[ISOM]

That's my point.
They should change that rulling, make it "If intentionally..".
Make it where, the player(s) go back to their respective base. In this case, instead of being safe at home, he goes back to third.
It was the right call, but you never wanna see the game end like that.

How can you tell if it's intentional or not?

 

[cashman]

Tangotiger ‏@tangotiger 6m
"Middlebrooks actually gave him a direct line from 3B to home. The runner though didn't take a direct route. Shouldn't that matter?": NO!

.

 

[Enron]

How can you tell if it's intentional or not?

Intentional doesn't even matter. Throw that part out the window. Doesn't matter if Middlebrooks did it on purpose or not.

 

[ToxicAdam]

That's my point.
They should change that rulling, make it "If intentionally..".
Make it where, the player(s) go back to their respective base. In this case, instead of being safe at home, he goes back to third.
It was the right call, but you never wanna see the game end like that.

Nah, baseball players are crafty enough to make it look unintentional.

When I used to play second base, sometimes I would stand in the baseline as the cutoff man (for the play at the plate) so the guy who hit the ball would have to loop around me.

 

[GashPrex]

Problem is that Craig is not on baseline at all - rule doesn't work when you extend it beyond the baseline.

 

[Godslay]

Yeah that's true, but its tough to do that when you're trying to make a play

I agree. Still the ball should never have gotten passed him in this situation.

That's my point.
They should change that rulling, make it "If intentionally..".
Make it where, the player(s) go back to their respective base. In this case, instead of being safe at home, he goes back to third.
It was the right call, but you never wanna see the game end like that.

Why? I'm sure it's been in the rulebook forever. If it was the right call why should it change?

 

[zychi]

Problem is that Craig is not on baseline at all - rule doesn't work when you extend it beyond the baseline.

.

 

[ISOM]

Intentional doesn't even matter. Throw that part out the window. Doesn't matter if Middlebrooks did it on purpose or not.

Oh I know that but he wanted to include the "If intentional" part to the rules which is ridiculous in itself.

 

[jello44]

Furthermore, Craig clearly would have been safe if he had not been tripped up there. He lost 2-3 seconds from that.

I'm not sure what people want: he was running inside the basepaths. You cannot trip a baserunner up (unintentionally or not) and then profit from it.

It's Boston though, the rules don't apply to them!

 

[Syphon Filter]

wut

 

[DarkFlow]

The ball hit him, that's a automatic out no?

Also the basepath is clear, craig goes out of his way to push middlebrooks down and go over him.

 

[cashman]

Runner establishes the baseline

The ball hit him, that's a automatic out no?

Nope. That was a throw from salty. Only time its an out is when it's a batted ball.

 

[DiscoJer]

That's my point.
They should change that rulling, make it "If intentionally..".
Make it where, the player(s) go back to their respective base. In this case, instead of being safe at home, he goes back to third.
It was the right call, but you never wanna see the game end like that.

Why? If a batter is unintentionally hit by a pitch it still counts. Or if a runner is hit by a batted ball on the basepaths, he's out, even though that's unintentional.

And how do you know it's intentional or not?

The ball hit him, that's a automatic out no?

Also the basepath is clear, craig goes out of his way to push middlebrooks down and go over him.

No. You can't get just an out by throwing the ball at the runner. Only when the batter hits a ball and the ball hits the runner is it an out.

And Craig is looking behind to see where the ball is. He doesn't have to watch out for Middlebrooks, he makes his own path. Middlebrooks has to get out of the way, which he didn't.

Otherwise, fielders would just flop in front of runners trying to slow them down.

 

[RadarScope1]

Umps held a press conference after the game. Don't think any other sport does this. While crew standing by the call. No hesitation. Ferrell admits it was the right call. That's the end of this one. These two teams have basically beaten themselves in all three games.

Same two teams tomorrow.

 

[hemtae]

It's Boston though, the rules don't apply to them!

What the hell are you even talking about?

The ball hit him, that's a automatic out no?

Also the basepath is clear, craig goes out of his way to push middlebrooks down and go over him.

Nope.

 

[Link]

The ball hit him, that's a automatic out no?

A ball being thrown into a runner is not an out. You're thinking of a batted ball hitting a runner, which still wouldn't apply in this case since he was on the base.

 

[Godslay]

.

Except for this little nugget of truth:

At the moment the defense begins to attempt a tag on him, his running baseline is established as a direct line from his current position to the base which he is trying for.

 

[Enron]

The ball hit him, that's a automatic out no?

...

no. The runner is only out when hit by a thrown ball if he INTENTIONALLY moves into the path of the ball specifically to take away the throwing lane of the fielder.

 

[GashPrex]

 

[Opiate]

That's my point.
They should change that rulling, make it "If intentionally..".
Make it where, the player(s) go back to their respective base. In this case, instead of being safe at home, he goes back to third.
It was the right call, but you never wanna see the game end like that.

The flipside, again, is that the Red Sox would have tripped up a player who clearly would have scored if he had not been tripped. In which case they would have profited from tripping a player (intentionally or not) who has running correctly inside the base path. I'm not sure there's a non-frustrating way to resolve that problem.

 

[knicks]

Can guarantee a different umpire would call something different.

He could have also ran more to the right away from the body...

Never seen anything like that called before.

And of course Joe Torre will back up any call made. They would never admit in wrongdoing the MLB, ever.

And I am a New Yorker who wants the cardinals to win, obviously.

 

[zychi]

Love that the ump isnt even looking and makes the call

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Runner establishes the baseline

To clarify:

7.08
Any runner is out when—
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged
unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A
runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight
line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; or
(2) after touching first base, he leaves the base path, obviously abandoning his
effort to touch the next base;

 

[DarkFlow]

...

no. The runner is only out when hit by a thrown ball if he INTENTIONALLY moves into the path of the ball specifically to take away the throwing lane of the fielder.

So intent only matters on defense, seems fair.

 

[Link]

Also, my mom's husband must be going nuts right now. God, I wish I could be there to see it.

Love that the ump isnt even looking and makes the call

Love that you post the frame right before he turns his head. Are you really this petty?

 

[Judderman]

Love that the ump isnt even looking and makes the call

It's a static image. Are you that dense?

 

[Sanjuro]

The flipside, again, is that the Red Sox would have tripped up a player who clearly would have scored if he had not been tripped. In which case they would have profited from tripping a player (intentionally or not) who has running correctly inside the base path. I'm not sure there's a non-frustrating way to resolve that problem.

Except he wasn't tripped and appeared to run at a pace which would have resulted in a close call.

So, no. It's not clear he would have scored.

 

[King Tubby]

You really think Allen Craig was trying to hold Middlebrooks down? Or that it made a difference? Like if he hadn't put his hands on him, Middlebrooks would've immediately gotten out of the way? You really think he deliberately tripped on Middlebrooks to draw the obstruction call, something that almost never happens? Watch the play in real time instead of slow-mo and still frames. It's clear that the only thing going through his mind is "OH SHIT I GOTTA GO TO HOME"

 

[zychi]

It's a static image. Are you that dense?

No horse in the race. Ump doesn't see Craig hold Middlebrooks down, calls obstruction on player lying on the ground.

 

[DarkFlow]

Silver lining, it's only game 3. I think this will light a fire under the Sox ass now. The umps woke the beast.

 

[Opiate]

Except he wasn't tripped and appeared to run at a pace which would have resulted in a close call.

Definitely, strongly disagree. He lost 2-3 seconds on that trip. He was being waved home for a reason, and I've virtually never seen anyone not score when a ball is thrown away that far.

So, no. It's not clear he would have scored.

It really is.

 

[zychi]

You really think Allen Craig was trying to hold Middlebrooks down? Or that it made a difference? Like if he hadn't put his hands on him, Middlebrooks would've immediately gotten out of the way? You really think he deliberately tripped on Middlebrooks to draw the obstruction call, something that almost never happens? Watch the play in real time instead of slow-mo and still frames. It's clear that the only thing going through his mind is "OH SHIT I GOTTA GO TO HOME"

You don't watch much nba, soccer or nfl do you? Flopping is huge in sports lately

 

[Sanjuro]

Definitely, strongly disagree. He lost 2-3 seconds on that trip.



It really is.

From all the angles I've seen, no. Really isn't. He gimped up halfway through 2nd to 3rd and was struggling to push off his foot.

 

[Syphon Filter]

Silver lining, it's only game 3. I think this will light a fire under the Sox ass now. The umps woke the beast.

yea right.

 

[RadarScope1]

No less than Johnny Bench just said on Twitter that the game was lost on a bad decision to throw to third. Baseball, more than most sports, is about correct execution. That's why they track errors in baseball. Mistakes matter. Sometimes they matter a hell of a lot. This was one of those times. Blame Salty, not the rule book.

Or just think of it as Tuck Rule Karma if we're blaming the rule book.