WS obstruction

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Uh....irrelevant most certainly is a word. How on earth can you conclude that Middlebrooks did nothing to obstruct Craig? So being directly in front of him and causing him to trip is nothing? I can only conclude you don't want to see it.

I'm sensing an extreme case of Fanboy Alert.

Middlebrooks had his feet cut from under him, thus his being on the ground. Middlebrooks was attempting to get up when Craig put both of his hands in Middlebrooks back using him as leverage to get up first. So do you have interference then?

Looking forward to your next salvo.

[Steven Tyler]

The moderator who locked the obstruction thread doesn't really get what a moderator job is................bye, bye to this thread. I was looking forward to more discussion, maybe more insight than, "Because I said so."

The baseball forum has gotten even more absurd. Why I rarely visit. It's still to the point where only a few posters opinions matter. Nothing has changed. We just have more people with axes to grind. I won't complain to Brad, because that's what babies do in my estimation. Like it would do any good anyway. The only reason that thread got locked was because of personality conflicts.

It's become like that old saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". My argument would that, "Bullets kill people." would be wrong. Irregardless I'm sure I'm the only one to blame.

I still don't see why obstruction was called being that the reason Middlebrooks was on the ground was because Craig contacted him putting him there.

Peace.

[Carl Childress]

I haven't read the thread yet. It was, by rule, Type b obstruction since the third baseman was in the base path without the ball and not making a play: The ball was already past him.

i think replay shows that Middlebrooks went prone to stop the errant throw. It's true he couldn't disappear. That is, as they say, hard cheese.

I'm going to the thread now. I've been hard at work on the 2014 BRD, on sale this week. And that's a blatant plug! (grin)

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

I haven't read the thread yet. It was, by rule, Type b obstruction since the third baseman was in the base path without the ball and not making a play: The ball was already past him.

i think replay shows that Middlebrooks went prone to stop the errant throw. It's true he couldn't disappear. That is, as they say, hard cheese.

I'm going to the thread now. I've been hard at work on the 2014 BRD, on sale this week. And that's a blatant plug! (grin)

I look at it not like a train wreck, but a fender bender. I see Craig using a popup slide, and contacting Middlebrooks as he was coming up.

If that was a dive, Olympic judges would have given him a. -8.0......

[Steven Tyler]

Here is the link. You get a good look at about 2 minute mark.

Obstruction call gives Cards win over Red Sox in World Series Game 3 - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

[Adam]

It was locked because it was going in circles and had devolved into a bunch of personal attacks and an irrelevant discussion about whether "irrelevant" is a word.

I locked it, I'll reopen it.

Keep it on topic, don't get personal with it.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Middlebrooks had his feet cut from under him, thus his being on the ground. Middlebrooks was attempting to get up when Craig put both of his hands in Middlebrooks back using him as leverage to get up first. So do you have interference then?

Since Middlebrooks was not attempting to field a batted (or thrown) ball, interference is not possible.

Craig was hindered directly in his path to the plate while the ball was in the outfield. No-brainer (b) OBS.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

It was locked because it was going in circles and had devolved into a bunch of personal attacks and an irrelevant discussion about whether "irrelevant" is a word.

I locked it, I'll reopen it.

Keep it on topic, don't get personal with it.

I apologize for my contributions to that. I did "self moderate" a post I made.

FWIW, I agree with the decision to close it.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Since Middlebrooks was not attempting to field a batted (or thrown) ball, interference is not possible.

Craig was hindered directly in his path to the plate while the ball was in the outfield. No-brainer (b) OBS.

So you're saying Middlebrooks wasn't making a play. I believe Middlebrooks would have caught the throw if not for the contact made by Craig. I've seen plays like this several times, and not once was an obstruction call made. Craig even used Middlebrooks as support to get up.

It's always like an echo chamber in here. If nobody supports my position, I can live with it............it wasn't obstruction after Craig knocked Middlebrooks to the ground. Kind of hard to do anything but be in the way.after that.

Jim Joyce bailed out the Cardinals. As least John Ferrell didn't stand out there, and argue like Mike Matheny did on the obvious non-transfer call.

Plus I don't care who won the game, or the World Series. I barely watched any of it for that matter.

Let me know when the next bandwagon leaves town...........

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Adam

It was locked because it was going in circles and had devolved into a bunch of personal attacks and an irrelevant discussion about whether "irrelevant" is a word.

I locked it, I'll reopen it.

Keep it on topic, don't get personal with it.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Middlebrooks had his feet cut from under him, thus his being on the ground. Middlebrooks was attempting to get up when Craig put both of his hands in Middlebrooks back using him as leverage to get up first. So do you have interference then?

Middlebrooks was prone because of the catchers errant throw; Craig did not contact him on the slide into third. I also don't see how Middlebrooks was used as "leverage"....anyone who is tripped puts their hands down to break their fall, which is exactly what Craig did.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I look at it not like a train wreck, but a fender bender. I see Craig using a popup slide, and contacting Middlebrooks as he was coming up.

Watch this video, especially the clip at 1:37. Yes Middlebrooks lifts his feet but this is NOT a result of contact from Craig. Middlebrooks is simply trying to get his feet out of the way so as not to get spiked in the ankle. 2nd basemen do this same move all the time.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

So you're saying Middlebrooks wasn't making a play. I believe Middlebrooks would have caught the throw if not for the contact made by Craig. I've seen plays like this several times, and not once was an obstruction call made. Craig even used Middlebrooks as support to get up.

The rule book covers this exact play - a fielder who doesn't catch the ball is no longer making a play once the ball is past him. There are no qualifiers for 'catch the ball unless the offense does something'. As long as the play was not interference - and I *hope* you're not making the completely specious argument that Craig interfered - then the fielder either makes the play or gets out the way. Period.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

It's always like an echo chamber in here. If nobody supports my position, I can live with it............it wasn't obstruction after Craig knocked Middlebrooks to the ground. Kind of hard to do anything but be in the way.after that.

Again, tough. If you don't make the play, you have no right to be in the basepath, regardless (irregardless?) of reason. Again, no interference so no foul on Craig, so Middlebrooks can't be where he is. Kind of hard or not - he can't be there. Period.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Jim Joyce bailed out the Cardinals. As least John Ferrell didn't stand out there, and argue like Mike Matheny did on the obvious non-transfer call.

An incorrect conclusion. Salty and Middlebrooks bailed out the Cardinals through their poor play and violation of the rules. The rest is....dare I say it...irrelevant.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by scrounge

The rule book covers this exact play - a fielder who doesn't catch the ball is no longer making a play once the ball is past him. There are no qualifiers for 'catch the ball unless the offense does something'. As long as the play was not interference - and I *hope* you're not making the completely specious argument that Craig interfered - then the fielder either makes the play or gets out the way. Period.



Again, tough. If you don't make the play, you have no right to be in the basepath, regardless (irregardless?) of reason. Again, no interference so no foul on Craig, so Middlebrooks can't be where he is. Kind of hard or not - he can't be there. Period.


An incorrect conclusion. Salty and Middlebrooks bailed out the Cardinals through their poor play and violation of the rules. The rest is....dare I say it...irrelevant.

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: If 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.

The example alludes to a batted ball. It has nothing to do with the play that happened. I find it strange in player interviews, they didn't even have a clue of what happened, or had ever seen interference called in the same scenario.

Joyce screwed the pooch. Amazing how he had to have two other umpires, and Joe Torre holding a rule book at the interview session to explain things. Middlebrooks was making a play. If that puzzles Joyce, he needs to hang up his mask.

So basically what you say isn't really in the rulebook is it? "Because I said so." isn't a qualifier it appears to me. Feel free to look in rule 7, but it isn't there either. If I remember correctly, Jim Evans has found a few (237) errors in the rulebook. Your irrelevance is irregular irregardless...........besos, bella.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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: If 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.

The example alludes to a batted ball. It has nothing to do with the play that happened.

You might want to re-read the area I highlighted in red..... the entire comment related to 2.00 refers to both thrown and batted balls.....

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Since you didn't see it, I'll explain it to you. Craig slid, and helped take Middlebrooks legs out from under him. It wasn't a dive for the ball by Middlebrooks. He was reaching for the ball...............actually Craig used Middlebrooks as support to get up, and when trying to go home he barely caught his foot on Middlebrooks back..............get real. Maybe obstruction in your book, but I don't ever recall seeing a play like the one that took place being call obstruction.

Instead of agreeing with the status quo, I would like to hear your take of the play.

The only point I'm trying to make different is that Middlebrooks was on the ground because Craig help get him there. The slide was clean. I just saw two players doing what they were supposed to do.

Where did I say I haven't seen it? I saw it live and had OBS, and I still have OBS like everyone else except for you.

Why can't I agree with the "status quo"? I agreed with lawump and would type the exact thing he typed, but that wouldn't be a good use of my time since my thoughts are exactly the same.

Go watch the video that someone posted a few posts up. Pause it at about 1:39. Middlebrooks had just missed the ball and was falling to the ground, Craig's foot had just contacted third base, and their bodies had not touched each other yet. How then did Craig's slide cause Middlebrooks to be knocked down? Even IF they incidentally contacted each other, it doesn't absolve Middlebrooks from being guilty of OBS.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Joyce screwed the pooch. Amazing how he had to have two other umpires, and Joe Torre holding a rule book at the interview session to explain things. Middlebrooks was making a play. If that puzzles Joyce, he needs to hang up his mask.

Now you're just trying to stir the pot. Do you not wonder why you're the only one arguing this way?

How was Middlebrooks making a play when the ball was rolling around in left field and he was on the ground? That would be difficult to tag a runner or touch a base with the ball 80 feet from you while lying on your chest. You are right in that Middlebrooks WAS making a play until the ball got by him into the outfield and he no longer could retire Craig. You don't get a chance to make a play and then be protected from being guilty of OBS for an extended period of time afterward. You're either making a play or you're not, and by rule he was not when the OBS happened.

What level(s) of baseball do you work?