MLB: ***Official World Series Thread***

HoopsTournament

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 12, 2006
7,844
4,983
113
53
St. Joseph, MO
www.hoopstournament.net
If you're a Red Sox fan you don't like it of course. But the fact is, if the Red Sox player isn't in the way, the run scores pretty easily.
And that is the reason the rule is written the way it is. Intent is irrelevant. The fact that Middlebrooks had nowhere to go is irrelevant. He impeded Craig from scoring and Craig would have scored if he wasn't there. That is all that matters.

Also, this part doesn't matter, but to those who ask what Middlebrooks could have done. How about not put himself in a place to field the ball where he is in the way? If you say Salty put him in that position, then why would Boston then get bailed out? The right call was made and the rule is in the rule books for a reason.
 

VikesFan22

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2011
16,547
1,308
113
Ames, IA
I'm pulling for the Red Sox and agree with the call. Because intent doesn't matter, the call had to be made. We don't know if Middlebrooks tripped him on purpose (I'd argue he didn't), but it doesn't matter. Crazy way to end a game.
 

urb1

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2010
3,411
1,998
113
Urbandale
It's the right call, but that's such a stupid rule. I'd like them to change it after the season.

That rule is to prevent fielders from blocking the runner for no reason. Take away the rule and you'd have fielders intentionally getting in the way. Like our OL is supposed to do.
 

Rabbuk

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2011
56,961
46,117
113
I've played baseball a long time and that was the right call. I don't get why people have a problem with the rule. The game is already hard enough for batters/runners.
 

HoopsTournament

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 12, 2006
7,844
4,983
113
53
St. Joseph, MO
www.hoopstournament.net
For those that think that Boston got hosed:

If they had not called obstruction - They would have basically said to Boston, "It is ok for you to make a bad play, but we feel sorry for you because you couldn't get out of the way even though you put yourself in that position in the first place."

Boston is the ones that put themselves in the position to cause the obstruction. The umpire did not make the throw. The umpire did not miss the throw and put himself in the baseline. It was Boston players that did that. So what could Middlebrooks have done? Not get in the way in the first place. Catch the throw. Tell his catcher not to throw it. All of those things were mistakes made by Boston. To ignore the rule book (like some here and others on TV said should have been done) would have bailed Boston out for all of those mistakes.

Also, I have heard some say that they shouldn't call it in that situation even though it was the right call - namely bottom of the 9th of a World Series game. A rule should always be enforced at any time in any game no matter the situation ESPECIALLY in as crucial of a situation like that. It is MORE important to call it that situation than any other.
 

WooBadger18

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2012
15,102
13,510
113
On Wisconsin
That rule is to prevent fielders from blocking the runner for no reason. Take away the rule and you'd have fielders intentionally getting in the way. Like our OL is supposed to do.
I agree you need to have a version of it to prevent fielders from blocking the runner, but you don't need to go as far as to call what the Boston player did obstruction. He dove for the ball, and then couldn't get out of the way in time. There's a difference between trying to obstruct the runner and not being able to get out of the way fast enough. I also hate how the runner can try and take out the defender's legs and not get called for anything, but the defender can't do anything, they always have to get out of the way.
 

HoopsTournament

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 12, 2006
7,844
4,983
113
53
St. Joseph, MO
www.hoopstournament.net
I agree you need to have a version of it to prevent fielders from blocking the runner, but you don't need to go as far as to call what the Boston player did obstruction. He dove for the ball, and then couldn't get out of the way in time. There's a difference between trying to obstruct the runner and not being able to get out of the way fast enough. I also hate how the runner can try and take out the defender's legs and not get called for anything, but the defender can't do anything, they always have to get out of the way.

Why are people so focused on INTENT? Intent is irrelevant. He put himself into the position where he was in Craig's way therefore it is obstruction.

If a pitcher didn't INTEND to hit a batter, should we not award the hitter first base?
If a fielder didn't INTEND to throw the ball into the stands, should we not award the runner the next base?
If the hitter didn't INTEND to swing the bat, should we not award the pitcher the strike out?

INTENT does not matter. It is absolutely 100% irrelevant. The runner was impeded BECAUSE of mistakes made by Boston, so why would you bail Boston out because Middlebrooks did not INTEND to be in his way?
 

HoopsTournament

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 12, 2006
7,844
4,983
113
53
St. Joseph, MO
www.hoopstournament.net
And Lynn is dealing it.

Interesting splits for Lynn this year:

Home ERA (2.82) vs. Road ERA (5.15)

Opponent's batting average by Pitch Count:
1-25 .290
26-50 .243
51-75 .277
76-100 .224
101+ .122 (only 41 at-bats)

The key place to watch him are pitches 51-75, but he has already gotten through the portion of the game that he is usually hit the hardest.
 

HoopsTournament

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 12, 2006
7,844
4,983
113
53
St. Joseph, MO
www.hoopstournament.net
And Lynn is dealing it.

Interesting splits for Lynn this year:

Home ERA (2.82) vs. Road ERA (5.15)

Opponent's batting average by Pitch Count:
1-25 .290
26-50 .243
51-75 .277
76-100 .224
101+ .122 (only 41 at-bats)

The key place to watch him are pitches 51-75, but he has already gotten through the portion of the game that he is usually hit the hardest.

He only allowed 1 hit in the 51-75 stretch, but his two walks were more damaging.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron