2013 World Series Thread

[UMP45]

Originally Posted by AremRed

With the exception of a few PU's with an inconsistent (at times) zone, I thought this postseason was very well officiated. I started thinking this during the LC series, and the World Series was even more exciting! Great ending.

Inconsistent as compared to what? The box on tv or what you thought was a ball/strike? Not bashing but it just sounds like coaches and fans hollering "be consistent".

Originally Posted by UMP45

Inconsistent as compared to what? The box on tv or what you thought was a ball/strike? Not bashing but it just sounds like coaches and fans hollering "be consistent".

There were two PU's during the Cards-Dodgers series that I felt did a poor job of being consistent on close strikeout calls. I am talking about less than 10 pitches total in those two games and I will not be more specific.

[Steven Tyler]

If Allan Craig knew how to run the bases there might not have been a game six. Only a 10 year old runs bases the way he did. He made so many blunders in fundamentals for an MLB player.

He started and stopped. Hesitated. Started back to second. Decides to run to 3B. Is almost out there. [Wouldn't have even been a play attempt if knew how to follow the R3 down] Knocks down F5. Stares out into left field as if there is something out there to see. Trips and fall over the player he knocked down and gets thrown out at home. All this with a bad leg. Right TMac.

Umpires pick up an extra game check............it's all good.

I'll say it one more time. It's not the call I so much disagree with. It's the reasons why it would be called obstruction.

Finis!!!!

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I'll say it one more time. It's not the call I so much disagree with. It's the reasons why it would be called obstruction.

There is only one reason obstruction is ever called - the runner is hindered by a fielder who is neither in possession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding it.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

There is only one reason obstruction is ever called - the runner is hindered by a fielder who is neither in possession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding it.

PS~not completely true. As long as we're splitting hairs. Catchers on occasions obstruct batters who aren't runners.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

PS~not completely true. As long as we're splitting hairs. Catchers on occasions obstruct batters who aren't runners.

Only in Fedlandia is that true.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Only in Fedlandia is that true.

Wondering who would be the first one to pull that out of the holster.

Quite aware of that by definition......but the rule set wasn't brought up was it.

Next time somebody says, "Offense interferes, defense obstructs." we need to specify each, and every rule set.

I guess the next big thread will be which rule set has the phrase "travesty of the game", and how many times.

Maybe it should be a requirement that when discussing a play in FED rules we use their terms for placement of runners. Per example, R1 on third, and R2 on first.

Must nits have to be picked to get minutaie point across? I don't feel the need to use the word troll.........................

PS~I did say on some occasions which means not on all occasions. I'll try, and be more specific next time.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Umpires pick up an extra game check!

I don't think that's true. (I know it didn't used to be true; haven't followed it in a number of years.)

[Manny A]

Ignore the troll.