WS obstruction

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

90% of this is completely irrelevant. This call is absolutely cut and dried. Call the rule. Don't make up your own holes in the rule where you can judge things that are not part of the rule.

Irrelevant isn't a word. Try non-relevant next time. I see a fielder knocked to the ground by a runner. I know the rule, and how it reads. It is of my opinion that Middlebrooks did nothing to intentionally or unintentionally obstruct Craig from advancing to home....

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Irrelevant isn't a word. Try non-relevant next time. I see a fielder knocked to the ground by a runner. I know the rule, and how it reads. It is of my opinion that Middlebrooks did nothing to intentionally or unintentionally obstruct Craig from advancing to home.....I don't believe you belong as moderator if I don't belong on the field, but then my opinion doesn't count for that does it.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...........

[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.

[zm1283]

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.

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...........

Can you show us a still picture or point to the part of the video where it shows this? I have watched it over and over and Craig never knockes Middlebrooks to the ground.

For what it's worth, I can't stand the Cardinals and I firmly believe this call was right.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Can you show us a still picture or point to the part of the video where it shows this? I have watched it over and over and Craig never knockes Middlebrooks to the ground.

For what it's worth, I can't stand the Cardinals and I firmly believe this call was right.

He didn't hit him with his spikes. He hit him with his right knee when he was coming up, and Middlebrooks was reaching for the ball. It doesn't take a lot to knock a fielder down in that position. I would hate to think a MLB F5 is so uncoordinated he slipped like he was ice skating on dirt..........this play is the same thing at any base. Untangle, and let them play, though they weren't tangled. You and others ignore the fact that Craig was using Middlebrooks as leverage to stand up to begin with. Craig was trying to go forward, and stand up at the same time. The clumsy bastard.

I've posted video a couple of times with the link. You're just going to have to stop it, and rerun it. If you look close you will see that Craig got up, and then fell on top of Middlebrooks. He didn't initially trip over Middlebrooks until after he fell the first time with no help from anybody.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Irrelevant isn't a word.

Yes, it is.

Perhaps you are thinking of "irregardless"