obstruction rule

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unlike many other rules that assess penalties when an infraction occurs, the point of the obstruction rule is not to penalize the defense.  It is to assess what would have happened if no infraction occurred.  I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that if Craig HADN'T tripped over Middlebrooks, he wouldn't have scored.  That is the crux of it.  If Craig was able to run cleanly to home, it was an easy run scored.  He couldn't, so the umpires made the call.


    It was NOT a penalty against the Sox.  I think understanding that is key to getting past this call.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which we should probably all do, since it was three days ago.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unlike many other rules that assess penalties when an infraction occurs, the point of the obstruction rule is not to penalize the defense.  It is to assess what would have happened if no infraction occurred.  I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that if Craig HADN'T tripped over Middlebrooks, he wouldn't have scored.  That is the crux of it.  If Craig was able to run cleanly to home, it was an easy run scored.  He couldn't, so the umpires made the call.


    It was NOT a penalty against the Sox.  I think understanding that is key to getting past this call.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which we should probably all do, since it was three days ago.

    [/QUOTE]


    Craig continued to stumble all the way home.  Was the because of what happened w/ WMB 40 feet earlier?  No way.  He would had been out regardless.   It's not a free base - you proceed at your own risk.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unlike many other rules that assess penalties when an infraction occurs, the point of the obstruction rule is not to penalize the defense.  It is to assess what would have happened if no infraction occurred.  I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that if Craig HADN'T tripped over Middlebrooks, he wouldn't have scored.  That is the crux of it.  If Craig was able to run cleanly to home, it was an easy run scored.  He couldn't, so the umpires made the call.


    It was NOT a penalty against the Sox.  I think understanding that is key to getting past this call.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which we should probably all do, since it was three days ago.

    [/QUOTE]


    Craig continued to stumble all the way home.  Was the because of what happened w/ WMB 40 feet earlier?  No way.  He would had been out regardless.   It's not a free base - you proceed at your own risk.

    [/QUOTE]

    FWIW, I have NEVER seen obstruction called and the runner not awarded the next base.  It apears that if the umpires feel the obstruction is significant enough to call it's also significant enough to award the base. 

    In that regard it's much like a batted ball bouncing into the stands.  The umpires have the discretion to award baserunners as many bases as they feel that runner would have gotten, but I can't remember a time when they awarded anything other than than two bases. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    He didn't have to trip over Middlebrooks. It was his own fault.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from patrickford. Show patrickford's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Since he was between second and third when he decided to pin Middlebrooks to the ground with both hands maybe they should have awarded him third base? 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    I didn't like that call any more than any Red Sox fan did, but it WAS the right call.

    Nowhere does it say that the runner has to leave the side of 3B that's closest to home, but regardless of the side of the base the runner chooses to leave from that runner is entitled to an unfettered path directly to home plate, free of things like bodies lying in his way that he has to avoid, trip on, or step over.

    Whether it was intentional or not, Middlebrooks obstructed that path and in the process impeded the runner's progress to the plate.   By the current rules that's obstruction.  It may not be a good rule and it may be a rule that's going to be changed but at the time the play happened it WAS the rule and it was called and enforced properly.   

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Watch where you are going. We are all taught that as children. Craig did no do that. It was his own fault. The MLB Channel showed a number of similar plays. The infielder prone in the same area where Middlebrooks was. The base runners easily avoided the fielder.  I just hope the Sox win this thing, or that play will be long remembered.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to patrickford's comment:

    Since he was between second and third when he decided to pin Middlebrooks to the ground with both hands maybe they should have awarded him third base? 



    Good one!

    Also, since he started running back towards 2B, shouldn't he have had to touch 3B again on his way back to home?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patrickford. Show patrickford's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    I'm kind of kidding, but he is between second and third. He is not between third and home. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unlike many other rules that assess penalties when an infraction occurs, the point of the obstruction rule is not to penalize the defense.  It is to assess what would have happened if no infraction occurred.  I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that if Craig HADN'T tripped over Middlebrooks, he wouldn't have scored.  That is the crux of it.  If Craig was able to run cleanly to home, it was an easy run scored.  He couldn't, so the umpires made the call.


    It was NOT a penalty against the Sox.  I think understanding that is key to getting past this call.



    Which we should probably all do, since it was three days ago.

    [/QUOTE]


    Craig continued to stumble all the way home.  Was the because of what happened w/ WMB 40 feet earlier?  No way.  He would had been out regardless.   It's not a free base - you proceed at your own risk.

    [/QUOTE]

    FWIW, I have NEVER seen obstruction called and the runner not awarded the next base.  It apears that if the umpires feel the obstruction is significant enough to call it's also significant enough to award the base. 

    In that regard it's much like a batted ball bouncing into the stands.  The umpires have the discretion to award baserunners as many bases as they feel that runner would have gotten, but I can't remember a time when they awarded anything other than than two bases. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That's too bad.  Game 3 of the 2003 ALDS was an amazing game!!!!!  Sorry you missed it.  I am sure you can get a copy of it though!  Check out what Miguel Tejada does rounding 3rd!  Followed by walk off by Nixon.  I think we even got to Foulke that game!!!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    So why wouldn't a baserunner round the bases just looking to knock into fielders (provided the fielders are not making a play w/ the ball)?  Every time it means a free base?  Come on.  It's a judgement call.  That's why I think it was the wrong call.


    Keep in mind, if it weren't for that play and Brez screwing up, this series would be over w/ yet another sweep. 

     

Share