Surprised that there hasn't been a thread about the WS. After the way game 3 ended, it's worth some discussion:

Umpires Explain Call

Tie game, 9th inning (abbreviated version): Sox catcher throws offline to 3rd base attempting to catch slow-running Craig. 3rd baseman doesn't block the ball and it goes into LF. Craig stumbles over 3rd baseman attempting to get to the plate. 3rd base ump calls Obstruction as soon as he sees Craig stumble. According to the rule, the ball is dead, the runner gets to advance a base. Game over. Cards win.

Most of the controversy today seems to be the idea that a WS game shouldn't end on an Obstruction call. Most of those, of course, are Sox fans.

It's been a good, evenly matched series so far.

(10-27-2013 01:24 PM)grol Wrote:  According to the rule, the ball is dead, the runner gets to advance a base.

The ball is not immediately dead in all cases of obstruction, including last night's. Because there was no play being made on the obstructed runner (at the time of the obstruction), play continued, and penalties were assessed after play ceased.

Here's a link to a more detailed explanation of the rule: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/major...sox-102613

(10-27-2013 01:57 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 01:24 PM)grol Wrote:  According to the rule, the ball is dead, the runner gets to advance a base.

The ball is not immediately dead in all cases of obstruction, including last night's. Because there was no play being made on the obstructed runner (at the time of the obstruction), play continued, and penalties were assessed after play ceased.

Here's a link to a more detailed explanation of the rule: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/major...sox-102613

Except that it looked like the homeplate ump ruled safe, apparently because the other ump was signaling obstruction. I think technically he should've ruled out, and then the obstruction rule invoked after the play had ended. But they got to the right place.

According to the umps at the postgame presser, the proper way to call it is as they did. Specifically 3B ump calls the obstruction when it occurs, then HP ump, aware of that call, watches the play come to fruition. If the play at the plate was close to the point that the runner might have been safe if not for the obstruction, the HP ump calls "Safe-Obstruction." If however, the play was not even close such that the obstruction made no difference (for example, the shortstop had been backing up the third baseman and throws the ball to the catcher before the runner is even halfway down the line), the HP ump would have called the runner out on the tag.

As for the whining coming from the northeast, I absolutely HATE when people say that a rule should not be enforced because of a particular situation.

Somewhere Barry Bonds is saying, "That's obstruction? I didn't do that."

If definitely was the right call.

Intentional or not, Middlebrooke clearly lifted his legs after the ball got by him while Craig was trying to pop up from the slide and advance. I thought it was intentional, the sort of thing you'd see in a middle school cafeteria, with feigned innocence, but it's entirely possible it was reflex on his part as well.

Intentional or not, he clearly tripped Craig, impeded motion, (which may be enough right there in the umprie's mind), and he s0did while moving his legs directly into Craig's path, causing the trip.

Interference does get called during the regular season, and I'd like to ask our SABR members on the board to weigh in on the frequency.

I doubt it is often, but it's rare NOT because the rule is unenforced.

It's rare because we teach kids playing at an early age (and I coach at the 9-11 year level now) that you can't stand in the runners way at the bases. We teach them when they're a bit older, that if they get caught in a rundown and end up face to face with a fielder who doesn't have the ball to run into them and fall down. We teach the fielders in a run down to peel off once they throw the ball so as not to get in the way of the runner.

It's rare because the players at the major league level have been trained for years not to obstruct the runners. When it does happen, it happens in unusual circumstances that may be unavoidable.

Last night probably fell into that category. But from the looks of the play, I also wouldn't be completely surprised if, once the ball flew past him into left field, the Boston third baseman, knowing Craig was popping up from a slide right next to him and was heading for the winning run, didn't intentionally raise his legs in the hope of entangling Craig and holding him at 3rd.

Again, it may have been accidental as well. Only one person knows for sure. But either way, it was definitely the right call, rare or not.

(10-27-2013 03:30 PM)texd Wrote:  According to the umps at the postgame presser, the proper way to call it is as they did. Specifically 3B ump calls the obstruction when it occurs, then HP ump, aware of that call, watches the play come to fruition. If the play at the plate was close to the point that the runner might have been safe if not for the obstruction, the HP ump calls "Safe-Obstruction." If however, the play was not even close such that the obstruction made no difference (for example, the shortstop had been backing up the third baseman and throws the ball to the catcher before the runner is even halfway down the line), the HP ump would have called the runner out on the tag.

Great description. Tex!

On how they signaled it: it looked like what the HP umpire did was signal safe and then immediately point to indicate the reason for the call. I suspect that's exactly their mechanic in that situation, and it certainly seemed clear to me (then again, I clearly noticed the third base umpire's obstruction signal so I pretty much knew what was coming (and then again, as many of you know, I'm a guy who actually looks at the officials when plays are happening)) . An alternative mechanic could be something like: signal out, then point, then signal safe, but I can see arguments against doing that also.

(10-27-2013 03:30 PM)texd Wrote:  As for the whining coming from the northeast, I absolutely HATE when people say that a rule should not be enforced because of a particular situation.

I was wondering if Bostonians have been melting down the way Aggies have done in similar situations. The logic, as it were, tends to go something like this:
"Our guy didn't do anything!"
- Well, OK, he did but...
"There's no rule against it!"
- Well, OK, there is, but...
"It wasn't intentional!"
- Well, OK, intent doesn't matter, but...
"The rule is never enforced!"
- Well, OK, it is, but...
"The rule shouldn't be enforced!"
- Well, OK, it should, but...
"It shouldn't be enforced against us!"

(10-27-2013 03:30 PM)texd Wrote:  According to the umps at the postgame presser, the proper way to call it is as they did. Specifically 3B ump calls the obstruction when it occurs, then HP ump, aware of that call, watches the play come to fruition. If the play at the plate was close to the point that the runner might have been safe if not for the obstruction, the HP ump calls "Safe-Obstruction." If however, the play was not even close such that the obstruction made no difference (for example, the shortstop had been backing up the third baseman and throws the ball to the catcher before the runner is even halfway down the line), the HP ump would have called the runner out on the tag.

As for the whining coming from the northeast, I absolutely HATE when people say that a rule should not be enforced because of a particular situation.

The umps obviously know better than I do, but that doesn't seem to jibe with the rule as written. From almadenmike's link:

"7.06(b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call 'Time' and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

The "no further action is possible" point would not have been reached until the runner was called out or safe. Unless the ump thought he was actually safe without the interference (which I don't think he did), further action was possible until he ruled out. And then he definitely didn't call time and assess penalties, he reversed his call in the moment.

Alternatively, if they felt like they were proceeding under 7.06(a), then the play was dead immediately upon the obstruction.

edit: But again, I think they got the outcome right.

(10-27-2013 04:00 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  If definitely was the right call.

Intentional or not, Middlebrooke clearly lifted his legs after the ball got by him while Craig was trying to pop up from the slide and advance. I thought it was intentional, the sort of thing you'd see in a middle school cafeteria, with feigned innocence, but it's entirely possible it was reflex on his part as well.

Intentional or not, he clearly tripped Craig, impeded motion, (which may be enough right there in the umprie's mind), and he s0did while moving his legs directly into Craig's path, causing the trip.

Interference does get called during the regular season, and I'd like to ask our SABR members on the board to weigh in on the frequency.

I doubt it is often, but it's rare NOT because the rule is unenforced.

It's rare because we teach kids playing at an early age (and I coach at the 9-11 year level now) that you can't stand in the runners way at the bases. We teach them when they're a bit older, that if they get caught in a rundown and end up face to face with a fielder who doesn't have the ball to run into them and fall down. We teach the fielders in a run down to peel off once they throw the ball so as not to get in the way of the runner.

It's rare because the players at the major league level have been trained for years not to obstruct the runners. When it does happen, it happens in unusual circumstances that may be unavoidable.

Last night probably fell into that category. But from the looks of the play, I also wouldn't be completely surprised if, once the ball flew past him into left field, the Boston third baseman, knowing Craig was popping up from a slide right next to him and was heading for the winning run, didn't intentionally raise his legs in the hope of entangling Craig and holding him at 3rd.

Again, it may have been accidental as well. Only one person knows for sure. But either way, it was definitely the right call, rare or not.

I think there may be a more innocent explanation. If you re-watch, the runner ended up well to the 2nd-base side of the bag before heading toward home, which put him right in the 3rd baseman's upraised legs. I think the 3rd baseman was actually trying to pull his legs up and out of the way. He knew he was positioned well inside the bag; lifting his legs up actually left the baseline completely clear (see the 1:15 mark in the video in almadenmike's link). It just looked bad because the runner wasn't where the 3rd baseman would've expected.

But I'm not one of the Red Sox fans saying the runner ran into the 3rd baseman on purpose. He lost his balance looking back over his shoulder while getting up from his slide and stumbled forward (he was pointed toward 2nd base at the time). When he got up he was a step inside the bag. It's still interference, though, despite the Red Sox fans' complaints that he wasn't in the baseline (he doesn't need to be if he's not avoiding a tag). Also, he didn't run into the interference on purpose -- he would've scored easily if he hadn't been tripped.

As a Rays fan, I'm thrilled to see the Red Sox lose.

(10-27-2013 06:16 PM)JOwl Wrote:  But again, I think they got the outcome right.

Undoubtedly. While some fine-tuning is always possible, it's really hard to come up with a legitimate reason to complain about this one. This strikes me as one of the least controversial "controversial" calls in a long time.

What's interesting is that if Craig had moved towards 3rd quicker all of this wouldn't have happened. Either his foot injury (OrangeCountyOwl's view) or he was overly hesitant waiting to see if the throw went home (my view) made it still a play at 3rd by the time the ball got away from the catcher.

BTW I wonder if Breslow thinks that being the answer to an Alan Shelby trivia question ranks up there with Sports Illustrated Covers as being a jinx. He has stunk up the mound ever since he was the answer to Alan's question.

(10-28-2013 08:33 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  BTW I wonder if Breslow thinks that being the answer to an Alan Shelby trivia question ranks up there with Sports Illustrated Covers as being a jinx. He has stunk up the mound ever since he was the answer to Alan's question.

Good point about Breslow.

Obstruction could have been avoided if:
Craig wasn't slow (or hesitant)
Throw had been on line or to the foul side of 3rd
3rd baseman had gotten off the bag to block the throw -- which meant
3rd baseman didn't get entangled with Craig
Or Farrell hadn't made certain substiutions...
Etc.

But now, Sox have evened it up on a pick-off to end the game.

(10-28-2013 09:31 AM)grol Wrote:  But now, Sox have evened it up on a pick-off to end the game.

Poor rookie Kolton Wong appears to be a goat - but the Cards lost the game in the earlier innings by not scoring more runs. Just like the Sox had their chances in earlier parts of game 3. Geeze, this Series is hard on the fans of both teams!

Good tweet:
If World Series Game 5 doesn't end with a midget falling for the hidden ball trick it won't be surprising

Or maybe some sort of Bartman/Buckner 1-2 punch. Game winning out stolen from Cards by fan seeking souvenir only to have go-ahead RBIs (RsBI?) scored on subsequent routine grounder through the wickets?

(10-28-2013 04:16 PM)texd Wrote:  Or maybe some sort of Bartman/Buckner 1-2 punch. Game winning out stolen from Cards by fan seeking souvenir only to have go-ahead RBIs (RsBI?) scored on subsequent routine grounder through the wickets?

One small counter-note: there is probably no ballpark on earth where a fan is less likely to interfere with a ball in play than Busch Stadium. It's not just that Steve Bartman would not have happened at Busch; I suspect that Jeffrey Maier wouldn't have either.