WS obstruction

[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.