World Series

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

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.
 
jimmy40 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
[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.
 
dexternjack said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rogah said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are probably right but it is still interference. I think in the end, the right call was made.
 
dexternjack said:
[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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jobberone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :(
 
dexternjack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What a boneheaded play at 1st base. You gain absolutely nothing by taking an extended lead.
 
Rogah said:
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?
Click to expand...

just responding to stupidity with a jab. I already said they made the right call in game 1.
 
and esp after today the cards were stuck at the airport for 6 hours
 
Congrats to the Sox. First World Series clinching win at Fenway for Boston in 95 years!
 
Boston has been so spoiled over the last decade. Tons of championships between the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, and Bruins
 
TheCoolFan said:
Boston has been so spoiled over the last decade. Tons of championships between the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, and Bruins
Click to expand...

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

I guess better the Sox win than the Cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 3,444 (members: 172, guests: 3,272)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,750
Messages
13,829,746
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top