World Series

[LittleBoyBlue]

He does it.
Then he doesn't look to home plate right away.

Very obvious.

 

[jimmy40]

It's easy to have "balls of steel" when you make that call.....at Busch Stadium!

he made the call immediately, had nothing to do with being at Busch Stadium, it's not like the umps got together and overturned a call or something.

 

[Rogah]

he made the call immediately, had nothing to do with being at Busch Stadium, it's not like the umps got together and overturned a call or something.

Srsly dude, let it go. The umps made the right call in game 1 (and they made the right call last night).

I've never seen so much whining about a call which was absolutely, crystal clear the right call. Who cares if they had to huddle up and discuss it before giving their final judgment?

 

[Tabascocat]

[quote="jobberone, post: 5257354, member: 375"]It's supposed to be flagrant to be obstruction. It's a judgment call here as to whether or not it is flagrant although I see why it was called. That doesn't mean it would always be called that way.[/quote]

That is incorrect. It does not have to be flagrant, obstruction is obstruction but it is to the discretion of the ump. The runner can not interfere with the fielder, purposely or accidental.

 

[Rogah]

That is incorrect. It does not have to be flagrant, obstruction is obstruction but it is to the discretion of the ump. The runner can not interfere with the fielder, purposely or accidental.

Personally, I don't even think it was accidental. I think that last second leg kick was done deliberately and I don't think the call gets made without that part.

 

[Tabascocat]

Personally, I don't even think it was accidental. I think that last second leg kick was done deliberately and I don't think the call gets made without that part.

You are probably right but it is still interference. I think in the end, the right call was made.

 

[jobberone]

[quote="jobberone, post: 5257354, member: 375"]It's supposed to be flagrant to be obstruction. It's a judgment call here as to whether or not it is flagrant although I see why it was called. That doesn't mean it would always be called that way.

That is incorrect. It does not have to be flagrant, obstruction is obstruction but it is to the discretion of the ump. The runner can not interfere with the fielder, purposely or accidental.[/quote]

Well, yes and no. The rule does state it does not have to be flagrant but flagrant is the way it is generally called. Normally if a fielder falls in the base path trying to field a ball they won't call that unless it is flagrant. Obviously the official thought he was trying to trip him which is probably true and called it. I don't think everyone would have called that but as I stated before it likely would be called there more often than not. That's just the way the game is normally played. This explanation is in the rules BTW. I'm not just stating an opinion.

 

[Tabascocat]

That is incorrect. It does not have to be flagrant, obstruction is obstruction but it is to the discretion of the ump. The runner can not interfere with the fielder, purposely or accidental.

Well, yes and no. The rule does state it does not have to be flagrant but flagrant is the way it is generally called. Normally if a fielder falls in the base path trying to field a ball they won't call that unless it is flagrant. Obviously the official thought he was trying to trip him which is probably true and called it. I don't think everyone would have called that but as I stated before it likely would be called there more often than not. That's just the way the game is normally played. This explanation is in the rules BTW. I'm not just stating an opinion.[/quote]

True, there is a lot of gray area here.

One umps quote...."With the defensive player on the ground, without intent or intent, it's still obstruction," Joyce said. "You'd probably have to ask Middlebrooks that one, if he could have done anything. But that's not in our determination."

The main problem with this rule is....individual umpire's discretions. Anytime a rule can be interpreted differently, problems will arise. My point is that it does not have to be intentional(hard to prove anyways) to be obstruction.

Add: not sure why our quotes are getting mixed up

 

[jobberone]

Well, yes and no. The rule does state it does not have to be flagrant but flagrant is the way it is generally called. Normally if a fielder falls in the base path trying to field a ball they won't call that unless it is flagrant. Obviously the official thought he was trying to trip him which is probably true and called it. I don't think everyone would have called that but as I stated before it likely would be called there more often than not. That's just the way the game is normally played. This explanation is in the rules BTW. I'm not just stating an opinion.

True, there is a lot of gray area here.

One umps quote...."With the defensive player on the ground, without intent or intent, it's still obstruction," Joyce said. "You'd probably have to ask Middlebrooks that one, if he could have done anything. But that's not in our determination."

The main problem with this rule is....individual umpire's discretions. Anytime a rule can be interpreted differently, problems will arise. My point is that it does not have to be intentional(hard to prove anyways) to be obstruction.

Add: not sure why our quotes are getting mixed up [/quote]

If you start something on any device when logged in it will save the draft. Then if you start again it will throw that up there. I'll watch and make sure we don't have a problem.

 

[Rogah]

What a boneheaded play at 1st base. You gain absolutely nothing by taking an extended lead.

 

[Kristen82]

What a boneheaded play at 1st base. You gain absolutely nothing by taking an extended lead.

Overanxious rookie made the Wong move.

 

[ologan]

Overanxious rookie made the Wong move.

 

[jimmy40]

Srsly dude, let it go. The umps made the right call in game 1 (and they made the right call last night).

I've never seen so much whining about a call which was absolutely, crystal clear the right call. Who cares if they had to huddle up and discuss it before giving their final judgment?

just responding to stupidity with a jab. I already said they made the right call in game 1.

 

[jobberone]

Red Sox win game 5. Can clinch next game.

 

[dart]

yes indeed

 

[jobberone]

Mongo like.

 

[dart]

and esp after today the cards were stuck at the airport for 6 hours

 

[Jerruh]

Congrats to the Sox. First World Series clinching win at Fenway for Boston in 95 years!

 

[TheCoolFan]

Boston has been so spoiled over the last decade. Tons of championships between the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, and Bruins

 

[Tabascocat]

Boston has been so spoiled over the last decade. Tons of championships between the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, and Bruins

Pass one to New York and Dallas please................................

I guess better the Sox win than the Cards.