2013 World Series Thread
 

Game 1

PU John Hirschbeck
1B Mark Wenger
2B Dana Demuth
3B Paul Emmel
LF Bill Miller
RF Jim Joyce

Like the way they got together and overturned the call at second base early in game one. Even though Demuth was demonstrative, clearly an error - safe at second.

Tough for STL to argue when the Umps got the call right!

Did you hear what Joe Torre had to say just now? What did you think of it?

Also, Shane Victorino is very unhappy with the strike zone. I don't see what he has to complain about, he is leaning over the whole plate.

Sure coach, I will be happy to huddle with my 1 partner. Oh, never mind, we have signals too, and since he didnt converge on me, the call stands. WTF.

The MLB video of this play has a section of audio from the conversation of manager Mike Matheny and PU John Hirschbeck (starting at 1:58). To summarize:

John Hirschbeck: "There's five of us out here, ok. And all five of us say we are 100% sure that that was not a catch. Our job is to get it right."

Mike Matheny: "But how many...![cut off]"

Many of the comments I have read/heard from people (even the various announcers) commenting on this play say "that call never gets overturned". And I would wager Mike Matheny is saying the same thing before the audio in the above clip gets cut off. Disregarding the legitimacy of these peoples opinions regarding baseball umpiring, is there any shred of truth to this belief?

<iframe src='http://wapc.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=31172513&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

For a run of the mill game in early June, that probably doesn't get overturned. Game 1 of the WS? Yea, they're going to go to extra lengths to get it right.

Never, is a bit of exaggeration here. As far as a "shred of truth", I am sure if you were to hire some DC politician they could talk most people into believing this though. Now, if your quoting the announcers, then their is most likely a good chance that its just a WRONG statement.

I can understand from the umpires view of that play how he may have believed that it was a catch and transfer however, it just didn't happen that way so, they got it right ????

I guess this can lay to rest that old saw about "if the ball goes straight down it was dropped and if it goes out to the side it was on the release."

I'm not sure I like them getting together on this, though. What if "all five of us are 100% sure that the runner beat the tag?"

When I see issues like this, I think about what the lasting legacy of something like that could be in either direction. If they let the call stand, the name of the umpire who made the call becomes a household name for decades as the "guy who blew such an easy call, yada yada". If the call is discussed and overturned in a meeting of the man's peers (which happened), it becomes the topic of conversation for about the next 24 hours until Game 2 is played, and the umpire goes on to live his life in peace and continue with his career. I say BRAVO to all of the people involved. They got the call correct. The pressure that has historically been applied to baseball umpires to maintain autonomy and not ask for help is just simply too much.

Yep, this was a "lead on Sportscenter" kind of call, as in if they don't reverse such an egregious miss, it's the lead on Sportscenter and the start of a new meme. That doesn't mean every close play has to be huddled - indeed, there were other close plays in that game. But that wasn't just a whale of a miss, it was a brontosaurus.

The MLBUM has a section on Getting the Call Right. If memory serves (since I don't have a copy available right now), the recommended "signal" that Joe Torre alluded to would come when another umpire(s) has additional information that the calling umpire may have missed. An example given in the MLBUM is when a calling umpire may be blocked from seeing that the catcher dropped the ball on a tag play at home.

I have no problem accepting that. But in this situation, DeMuth had the whole play in front of him. He was just victimized by shitty judgment. And shitty judgment, IMHO, is not the time when other umpires come to the rescue of their partner.

That's exactly why Jim Joyce's call stood against Armando Galarraga. And Tim Welke's call stood against Jerry Hairston. Those were egregious misses that all three other umpires likely saw, but they didn't "seek to reverse" the call by walking toward them or giving them some other signal. Joyce and Welke knew better, and I'm surprised Demuth didn't stay his ground as well here.

{Edited to add} This will undoubtedly have repercussions down the ranks to us amateur umpires. Now when we have a clear miss on a play that's right in front of us (and we all have them on occasion), coaches will point to this play to argue their cases that we must go for help. An unfortunate precedent has been set, IMO.

Last night's play is a BIG reason why IR is needed. IR will actually speed up the game not take away from it.

You had John Farrell the Red Sox skipper come out and argue the call. Then the umpires huddled, call reversed and out comes Matheney and the umpires have to explain why they reversed the call. This took at least 10-15 minutes (maybe longer I didn't have a stop watch). If IR was used - 2 minutes tops as this was a no brainer of a call reversal.

Also, IMO if the game were played in St. Louis perhaps the call would not have been reversed. I doubt the Cardinal contingent would have replayed the play on the BIG screen like they did in Boston.

IMO, one of the umpires looked at or least glanced at the replay and saw that the call was blown BIG time.

IR is needed.


Pete Booth

But will that play be subject to review? I don't think it should be. Replay should be used for points of fact - fair/foul, out/safe, catch/no catch. Yes, there is judgment in an out/safe, but at its heart it's still a point of fact. Release or not is pure judgement, like obstruction/interference, etc. The football equiv is using replay for catch/no catch but for pass interference.

I don't think it's the end of the world if this is open for review, but I don't think it's as clear cut a candidate as other calls. Still, if they must review it, I do agree that it could actually take less time than the argue/counterargue cycle.

They DID?? I always thought that it was MLB policy that stadiums would not replay bangers, disputed calls, etc., on scoreboards. I know that's always been the case in every pro game I've attended, even when the call goes in favor of the home team.

Are you sure it was shown on the screen, Pete? I never saw Farrell point to the scoreboard during his argument with Demuth as if to say, "Dana, they just showed the play up there, and it's clear you missed it!"

That would have punched his ticket to the locker room. I know they gave him a long leash but not when you say something like that.

I guess the question becomes when does doing the right thing and getting the call right become more important than age-old precedents, traditions, don't want to step on somebody else's toes, which plays are reviewable and which are not, the fear that every single close play will become a huddle among umpires, it will slow the game down if we actually talk about it or (Heaven forbid) look at an instant replay, let's not embarrass our colleague, etc. etc.?

Let's face it. Names like Welke and Joyce have become household names for the wrong reasons. That umpire last night will probably not obtain such legendary status, because the situation was corrected before it got out of hand and the sports and news media got hold of it.

Whales (Blue):
Length - 70-90 feet (21-27 m) long
Weight - 120 tons (109 tonnes)

Brontosaurus:
Length - 70-90 feet (21-27 m) long
Weight - 33-38 tons (30-35 tonnes)

:) :) :)

Clearly I was referring to beluga whales!

well done :)

[QUOTE]IR will NOT slow the game down. IMO, it will speed up the game.

Let's take last night

First Farrell comes out and argues (3-5 minutes)

Now the umpires huddle (another 3-5 mintes)

Call reversed

Out comes Matheny (another 3-5 minutes)

If IR was used - 2 minutes tops as it was a no brainer.

Remember the skippers will get challenges just like football and they will not waste them on close plays. This was obvious

Forget about being traditional All sports now have replay and it's about time baseball joins the rank and file.

Pete Booth

I did not personally see it. It was mentioned on sports talk radio. I know they have been known to be wrong in the past. Perhaps there were adjacent TV screens and not the actual scoreboard that showed the replay

Pete Booth

Yes, they huddled, we need IR, yadda, yadda, yadda.

How about this, Get the damn call right to start with! The play was right in front of DeMuth and he simply blew the call, horribly.

I normally do not jump on the "big boys" but in this case, I really can't see why DeMuth thought that there was voluntary release. I tried to play it from every angle and I just cannot see it.

And who made them household names? The press and the fans. You don't hear or read of other umpires bringing up their names and saying Joyce and Welke should go down in infamy. But you just might hear them say Demuth opened up a huge Pandora's Box.

Yeah, they are age-old traditions and precedents. But unless the union decided that those traditions must change for the 2013 World Series, why now? Why not at the start of the post-season? Or the start of the 2013 regular season?

Until real change is formally put into effect (e.g., the use of instant replay), you go with what is expected of your trade, no matter how old. If what Demuth did is considered correct by those who REALLY matter (and, to me, the press and fans don't matter here; it's the fellow umpires who matter), I would really like to know.

You ridicule how every close play will now get reviewed. Well, guess what? That is now the standard. Heaven help the umpire of this crew who doesn't give in to the whines of the manager. Heck, I'm guessing that the expectation is for umpires to come running in like their NFL and NBA counterparts to "help" their partner get the call right even before the manager steps out of the dugout.

Interesting read....
 

the pool reporter transcript post-game by the umpires and Torre...

ASAP Sports Transcripts - Baseball - 2013 - MLB WORLD SERIES: CARDINALS v RED SOX - October 23 - Dana DeMuth - John Hirschbeck - Joe Torre

In the clip of the play it is pretty clear that Demuth's head is turned, looking at the feet for the neighborhood play. The transcript of the post-game conversation seems to confirm this. Demuth had a couple things to watch, and the tip off the glove happened while he was looking elsewhere, at the worst time possible. It was really a perfect storm.

I don't think the signal to offer help is converging on the guy, he probably glanced around and saw every umpire giving him "the look".

Does anyone think that the umpires would have gathered even if Farrell missed the play and did not come out?

First, I never said that every play would be reviewed. Secondly, the NFL and NBA officials ignore the vast majority of the whining from the coaches. And, thirdly, I thought a baseball officiating crew was supposed to be a team. In reality, the entire crew is apparently a bunch of independent contractors who reign with complete autonomy over their little patch of the field. Demuth asked for help. If the umpires felt more comfortable in asking for help, the game would actually get stronger.

Bottom line--MLB umpires do not work as a team as I feel they should. As a result, we see these massive meltdown arguments, fights, suspensions, fines every single year. But it's apparently too late for that to change now--instant replay is coming.

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting and revealing. I love what Joe Torre pointed out-- "JOE TORRE: One thing for you to know, he didn't miss a call all year. And he still hasn't missed a call all year. "

"And in that group, you're in that group?
DANA DeMUTH: Yeah.
JOHN HIRSCHBECK: We're all there. He's standing there listening.
JOE TORRE: They're a team."

And there in lies the point of which I believe many Baseball officials in the past have failed to understand.

When the team gets together and make the correct decision they All look good. Conversly when the team or individual refuses to get together, they ALL look bad. And no, this is not applicable to every single play or scenario on the field.

I have asked many coaches, "Are you upset that we got the call right or that we changed the call?"

Ozzy I'm starting to lean more on the "dark side" and maybe umpiring schools need to change with respect to getting help.

We were "brainwashed' or whatever you want to call it when it came to asking our partner for help. Except for once in a while, it was blasphamy to request help. I'm sure "back in the day" you worked with guys that would not even look at you meaning DON'T ASK ME.

Let's take last nights game. Why should we have to wait for DeMuth to request help. Football officials gather almost all the time and discuss the situation yet in baseball you have to wait for the umpire who made the call to request help on his own, which IMO is ludicrous. Suppose DeMuth actually refused to get help and stuck with the call. There is nothing no-one could do at that point no matter how blatent of a miss.

My brother-in-law is a FED football official and they work in crews and I think it's great. Nothing is perfect but as mentioned above I am now leaning more towards the "dark side" then I used to.

Perhaps with IR umpiring schools will now teach / instruct etc. officials to work as team rather then as individuals and then of coarse the rules need to be re-written which would not be a bad thing.

Pete Booth

IMO, you are spot on in your assessment and I will add one more comment to that. IMO, baseball officials unlike other major sports officials are not held accountable.

Ed Hochule a well respected football official blew a call BIG time in a game played between the Broncos and the Chargers years past. It was an inadvertant whistle and at that time (before the NFL changed the rule) the ball was declared dead regardless of what actually happaned.

Replay clearly showed that the runner was not down by contact etc. and the Chargers recovered the fumble but because of the inadvertant whistle the Broncos retained possession and won the game on the next play. If memory serves Hochule did not get any post season assignments that year.

MLB umpires are there for life. I'm pretty certain there are some young very good officials in the Minor leagues waiting for their shot but most will never get that chance.

Yes as baseball officials we are "viewed" as a team but we do work as individuals. That's the way it has been taught for years. MAKE YOUR OWN CALLS. I was a proponent of that philosophy 1000 percent but perhaps (im getting older now) that philosophy needs to change.

One major problem is that for the vast majority of us we work 2 person until we get to playoffs / sectionals / state finals etc. In other words out of a total sason there are only a handful of games where you actually work 3 or 4 person.

Working 2 person, it's very difficult to work as a team because you simply do not have the coverage you need. Each umpire in a way has to stick "with their own island' so to speak because as mentioned there is only 2 of you.

In summary, for MLB I do agree, they should work more as a team and with IR coming perhaps the umpiring schools will change their philosophy, but in 2 person it is more difficult.

Pete Booth

I hear you Pete. In our day, you put your butt on the line with each call and you better not ask the other guy to do your job. That's all changed now and it is because schools and clinics have stopped putting the onus of the call on the umpire and instead, put it on the "team". Back then, the onus was on youto get the call right or die with the call. The youngster of today don't understand this and argue with it because they were never taught this way (unless they were taught be me). They never experience being all alone out there with a bad call and no one to "help". That is what made us the officials we were because we didn't want to be hanging out to dry. Times change an sometimes not for the better.

My advice is simple; get the call right and you won't need "board meetings" and IR. You'll still have disagreements but the calls will be solid.

I see a lot of umpires who don't work hard to get in the right position to make calls. The attitude for some of them is, "I have a plate umpire to help with the swipe tag or pulled foot -- I don't *need* to bust my a$$ and get across and get the best possible look." I simply call those guys "terrible umpires."

Times have changed -- I see the value in having the occasional conversation when things go sideways and there's indecision or additional information. But it shouldn't be the normal thing -- this particular situation is newsworthy because it's so damned rare.

I am glad they got the call right in the end, but that was one of the worst calls I have ever seen on an initical play. It was not close and I am glad the crew got together to get it right. It would not be hard to see how bad that call was and give help even when you have other things to watch.

This is why they need to do something about the MLB Umpiring program IMO to get better guys either working the playoffs or fire guys for these kinds of mistakes. If this was in NFL and and an official called a completed pass with simailar possession I am sure they would be downgraded even if they had replay to overturn this call.

Peace

Is it just me, or should Joe Torre have stayed out of this press conference altogether? Who made him MLB's advocate for umpires?

Manny do you know why Fox discontinued using Steve Palermo in the booth to explain certain situations?

I liked it when Palermo was in the booth. That way McCarver was kept in check and we did not have to listen to him or Buck butcher another rule interp.

Joe should have taken after his father Jack. Jack Buck at one time was a football referee. To this day IMO, Jack was one of the few (or perhaps only) play by play person who actually knew the rules.

Pete Booth

Pete, not really. Pure speculation, but I'm guessing that there just wasn't enough demand for his services.

How often in a typical game does a situation requiring an umpire's perspective take place? I cannot recall, for example, anything happening in Game 2 last night that would have been worthy of Palermo's input. Even the base awards following Breslow's errant throw was pretty cut and dried. Some of the more mundane things like whether or not an umpire was in the ideal position for a play, whether or not a warning should have been issued for a plunked batter, etc., just isn't sexy enough for an extensive discussion.

Dana DeMuth is one of the best umpires in baseball and has been in the league for a very long time. You using one missed call to question his selection or his career even is surprising coming from you.

Even the best miss calls. Very few get to do it on a stage like that, though.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;908632]I went back and watch the sequence on my PVR. From the time of the play to the next pitch was 4 minutes and 30 seconds exactly. Farrell arguing, the umpires huddling and Metheny arguing took 4 and a half minutes. I don't think instant replay will be much faster. It will result in more correct calls however and that's good.

The job description for his position as MLB's Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations.

That position has responsibility for and oversees...
>Major League Operations
>On Field Operations
>On Field Discipline
>Umpiring

Maybe that is the case, but that was horrible. And when you assign the World Series on a rotation of some kind and not necessarily the best guys each season, you get these kinds of situations. Sorry, but he might be very good but that was awful and I still think MLB handles their umpires worse then any other professional league. My comments are not about a single call, they are about the fact that these kinds of plays keep happening and these guys never can be fired or replaced no matter how fat, number of bad call or just inconsistency they are apart of during the season. I did not even need to see the replay to know that was very bad. It is one thing to miss a call that is a bang, bang call, but this was not even close. I expect that from a Little League or youth Umpire, not a MLB guy. I would not expect that from a small college guy in a 2 man game. And if the call was completely in the glove and then some issue of the ball coming out on the transfer took place, then I could also understand. But how do you not see the fielder catch the ball in this case? How?

Again, just an opinion. And I am a Cardinals fan too. And I was glad when that call was made right by the crew, even with the fact it hurt my team in the long run.

Peace

Just this last post season, had a coach who thought I should get a second opinion on (1) a pulled foot at first and (2) a tag play at second.

When I said no on the second one, he said, "That's the second time you've refused to go for help! You need to get over that!"

Really?

Rita

And you feel that gives Joe the responsibility of putting in his two cents everytime the umpires get questioned by the press? Should he also be sitting next to the managers when they're interviewed about an on-field disciplinary situation, such as when a player gets ejected?

I just didn't think he needed to interject after virtually every answer that was given by each umpire. The umpires are big boys and don't need to have their hands held when in front of the cameras. In the past, umpire interviews entailed the umpire making the controversial call, and his crew chief supporting him. Joe adding fluff such as, "They're a team," and, "He hasn't missed a call all year," adds zero value to the discussion.

Unfortunately, that's going to become more and more common. Soon, we'll have to have an odd number of umpires on every game and we'll all vote on every play.

How do you know how I feel or what I think?

You asked a question regarding Torre's role with MLB umpires, I posted his MLB title and job description to provide an answer.

I think we care too much about what a coach thinks. I have no problem refusing "help" when I am doing nothing but watching a play and I know my partner cannot do much to help or does not have the look I have. They will get over it.

Peace

Great call by Jim Joyce.

Peace

So, how many times are we umpires going to have to explain rule 7.06 to people over the next few days?

Come on, you've got to let the players decide the game...plus you can't call that in the WORLD SERIES! ;)

Amazing game, amazing call, amazing ending!

Joe Torre, Jim Joyce, John Hirschbeck, and Dana Demuth on the call.

*Embed

<iframe src='http://wapc.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=31185803&width=400&height=22 4&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Have to say, from a spectator's perspective, I was most impressed with how calmly and authoritatively the two umpires handled this. A model of professionalism.

+1

It seemed like a textbook call, but Joyce and Dumuth sold it immediately. They left no room for doubt and did a good job of defusing a potential mess. Great work.

No, it WAS a textbook call.

No doubt about it, no matter how many people complain that Middlebrooks couldn't do anything about it. I had to laugh with someone (might've been Salty) who thought Craig went out of the baseline when he got up and started for home. Make a good throw, Salty, and none of this would've taken place.

I'm not disputing the obstruction call except if you watch, the base runner never touched the plate. Nevertheless he was called safe, which of course is the correct call until the missed base is appealed by the defense.

Realistically, how does the defense appeal such a play (final play of the game) when the umpires leave the field so quickly?

gotta love how Torre literally pulled out the book to demonstrate...:)

The next baseball game at any level I officiate will be my first. But I assume this would be like the McCann-Gomez brouhaha in Atlanta. McCann obstructed, Gomez was awarded home but never touched the plate. Run scored anyway.

One is an odd number.

I'm perfectly fine with that. (For kids' games.)

AG and others....

If last night's play was obstruction during the regular season, then it was obstruction in the World Series. Great call by Jim Joyce and great communication between DeMuth and Joyce on the enforcement of the play.

Playoffs or no playoffs....we are paid to do a job and this umpiring crew has definitely being doing their job.

No, players don't decide the game when the rules are violated. You make that call whenever it happens. It doesn't matter if it's the world series or not. The rule was violated, and there you are.

Two burning questions:

a) Shouldn't Demuth have called "time" as soon as the tag was applied, then given the award?

b) what if Craig stays at third? Any award?

Gentlemen, APG was kidding.

a) I think that if a play is being made on the obstructed runner then the umpire calling the obstruction (Jim Joyce) should kill the play and make the award.

b) I think that the contact only happened after he made a move towards home so I say OBS regardless, even if he turned around and returned to third IF in the judgement of Joyce the reason he didn't advance was due to the OBS.

a)I agree, according to the PBUC manual should have called time and then enforce. He signaled safe and then pointed to Joyce.

b) Then that is where he is. If the runner never attempts to go home, then you can't assume he would have made it there safely or not. I think Joe Torre refers to the Tejada play several year ago when even though he was obstructed he quit running and returned to third.

At the point that the ball passed Middlebrook a new play started in which the runner was attemping to go home. This was Type B or Type 2 OBS and is a delayed dead ball.

Thanks for the clarification.

At that point in that game, there wasn't an umpire on the field who cared what this coach thought. He was THAT kind of coach.

So this guy ended up finally leaving. It's just that I had the "honor" of letting him know it was time.

Rita

If memory serves, Tejada was obstructed rounding third, and then he slowed up and basically jogged to home, getting thrown out by a long shot. The out stood because he assumed (wrongly, obviously) that he would be automatically awarded home.

I have stopped scheduling umpires who kept saying this. At the moment of obstruction, you determine the award. In some codes, post-obstruction evidence can be used ... but you NEVER EVER require a runner to attempt to reach an awarded base. The base award here was home, regardless of whether he tried to score or not. (If you don't rule this way, then tackling this runner and laying on top of him would prevent the score every time.).

From what I saw in the video, the Joyce followed the overthrow then turned his head to see the obstruction. At the time, there was no play being made on the runner. It appears that both Joyce and Demuth were going with Type B obstruction.
If you mean, the runner, after being obstructed, gave up and returned to 3rd? He is awarded Home due to the obstruction. He was attempting to advance and was obstructed by Middlebrooks who didn't have the ball. It doesn't matter if the runner continues or retreats, he will be awarded the next base at a minimum.

Demuth was not pointing back to Joyce, he was calling the runner safe and claiming obstruction at 3rd base. That would be the same mechanic I would be following. As the PU, you have everyone coming to you as to why you signaled SAFE when the runner was clearly tagged out. It's all about process and information.

There is no minimum base award on Type B obstruction in OBR. Umpires must judge and they said so in their press conference and Torre even brought up the Tejada play in which Tejado essentially gave up running home hard and was tagged out as he trotted toward home, thinking he would be awarded.

In FED there is no B obstruction and there is a minimum award. In OBR, no minimum on Type B.

If you watch the video replay from the LF camera, you will see Demuth point toward 3b when he saw Joyce make the call, essentially echoing, or at least recognizing the call. So after the play at the plate he simply called him safe and pointed toward Joyce again, stating obstruction had occured at 3b.

I'm a little confused here. A previous post exampled an MLB play where, I believe the runner, thinking he was protected to HP, jogged in and was thrown out and the out stood. What am I missing? In type B or 2 don't you judge the hindrance and if it didn't make a difference call the play as is?

Not exactly. The runner is still obligated to run the bases, and then the umpire decides when play is over whether or not the hindrance affected that running. If the runner doesn't run the bases because he believes he's protected, which is what Miguel Tejada assumed, shame on him.

A's falter, Red Sox Trot off with Game 3 victory / Nixon rips game-winning HR in 11th, Boston narrows the series gap to 2-1 - SFGate

You'd have to stop scheduling me, then. Although I'd ask the question -- how the hell would you know when I'm deciding since I'm not announcing anything other than acknowledging that obstruction occurred until playing action is over?

I rarely determine the award at the moment the obstruction happens when it's Type B obstruction. Why should I? I have all the time in the world to weigh post-obstruction evidence to determine my actual award.

No reason to put myself into a corner at any point until I actually make the award.

I agree with Rich. My award is "20 feet" or something (although I'm sure I don't put that precise a definition on it) and then I decide what that means in baseball terms later.

For me it may be distance or time, but it's all just an approximation like you said.

I don't think I would know it from actions I saw on the field. I have stopped scheduling umpires who felt a runner HAD to attempt to achieve the award base - after they told me they felt a runner HAD TO attempt to achieve the award base, and would not listen when the rule was explained to them.

The play here is not a good example of what I'm talking about though.

Envision what appears to be a hit where a runner from first is easily going to make third. However, F6 is watching the ball out in right field and collides into the runner, knocking him down. The ball is retrieved, the runner gets back up and scrambles back to 2nd. You, as umpire, know he would have made 3rd, likely even without a throw.

You award third. The runner does not have to try to get to third. And I've had umpires who insist that since the runner didn't attempt to go to third, they will not award third. Even if I explain to them that if their ruling is correct, F3 could simply tackle a fast runner on an apparent triple, and keep him from trying for 2nd -- and they would award first because the runner didn't try to go to 2nd (or 3rd). That's absurd. And I think most of you would agree.

I think you mis-interpreted what MDL was saying (or I am). I think his point was that if an umpire thinks that because a runner didn't try to advance after being obstructed is, and of itself, a reason not award base(s), then he doesn't want to assign that umpire games.

Well, we're talking about different things, then.

It was to this that I replied... "If the runner never attempts to go home, then you can't assume he would have made it there safely or not." That statement is simply untrue, and would have been untrue in the scenario HE was replying to --- the case where the tripping was bad enough that the runner didn't attempt to go home.

I will admit I was confused about the timing of the decision to award or not award and a min award for Type B OBS however, I never said that the runner HAD TO attempt to go home. If he doesn't though, you can't assume anything but you will still have to make a ruling based upon the facts that happened prior to completion of play.

If Craig tripped, stood up and stayed at third, would it have been an automatic award of home???

Once again, with emphasis: There is no "automatic" award for Type B Obstruction!

Now, if Craig stayed at third base on this play, it's quite possible that the umpires would award him home if they felt he intended to advance, didn't because of the trip, and would have made it safely home if he had. No different than awarding the batter-runner second base on a gapper after he collides with a clueless F3 standing in the path, and then crawls back to first.

But that would've been a tough sell, given Craig's speed (or lack thereof) on the bases, and the way Nava backed up the play. The fact that Craig did get up and made it a close play at home lessened the doubt on the PU's judgment.

My point exactly.

Absolutely not automatic. Definitely possible, and completely judgement on U3's part.

Works for me.

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".

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.)

Ignore the troll.

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.

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.........................:D

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

That's really cute not only coming from you but also considering that the whole point of your post was to "split hairs" as you put it.

Feel free to have the last word.

If you insist. Thanks for proving my point. Check and checkmate.....:)