2013 Baseball season!!!

[Winston Legthigh]

I'd take 75% Max over 100% of any Tigers reliever.

 

Truth. 

 

This Tigers team didn't really seem like a team of destiny (none of the past three playoffs teams have - well, not like '84 at least). Their relief pitching ranks among the worst in the league.

[uncool2pillow]

[Oil Can Boyd]

I forgot Leyland managed the Pirates and Bonds. 

So to combine the Pirates and smoking gets to this picture:

 

[The High Heat]

I watched this about a month ago. Nice to see someone make Barry look like the little b**tch he is.

[The High Heat]

The Reds have promoted pitching coach Bryan Price to manager. They also considered Jim Riggleman.

[KevinG]

Well so far this series has been entertaining to say the least.

[Guest Don Draper]

Oh my.  Wow.  After that finish I think I'm going to have to block 70% of friends on my Facebook feed for at least 20 hours.

[LouieB]

So exactly what constitutes interference and at what point does the team interfered with get an automatic run? Any experts here?

 

Not taking sides on this one, but I am not sure I understand the rule or even know what it is.

 

LouieB

[Guest Don Draper]

Fox commentators said that interference does not require intent (I love the commentator who used the phrase 'strict liability'), but a Red Sox fan on Facebook stated that it does require intent.  In slo-mo the leg left did not look intentional to me, but when they replayed it in real time it did look intentional.

 

But I think the general principle is that you get the base if the time lost in dealing with the obstruction could have gotten you the base.  

[Guest Don Draper]

That being said, and not having a dog in this fight, the call would sit better with me if he had actually touched home plate.

[KevinG]

That being said, and not having a dog in this fight, the call would sit better with me if he had actually touched home plate.

I agree, I hate it when an ump's call decides the game.

 

As a cubs fan I don't want the cards to win.

[Guest Don Draper]

I love watching baseball and though I wouldn't call myself a fan necessarily, I really enjoyed As They See 'Em, the book about umpires.  Unbelievably hard job, in my opinion - the book talks about minor league umps getting beaten up in parking lots after games.  I can't imagine they want to make the call that decides the game either, especially in a World Series game.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

from what i gather (i fell asleep after the 8th because i am an idiot) it was the right call, albeit one of of those confusing baseball rules no one knows about till it screws them over

 

personally i think its a lame way to decide a world series game, but those are the breaks. play on.

[calvino]

from what i gather (i fell asleep after the 8th because i am an idiot) it was the right call, albeit one of of those confusing baseball rules no one knows about till it screws them over

 

personally i think its a lame way to decide a world series game, but those are the breaks. play on.

 

I agree, plus I fell asleep, too, in the 8th. There's four more games to be played  - play on.

[Guest Jules]

It's not really confusing. In a case of interference, with or without intent, the runner is awarded the next base. Unfortunately for Boston this happened to be home plate and the winning run. The real issue is the catcher shouldn't have made the throw. It's on him.

[Guest Don Draper]

Yes.  Thankfully for him there won't be a widely-circulated animated gif of him flopping like a trout for the next 6 weeks.

[Guest Jules]

A better explanation...http://deadspin.com/heres-the-obstruction-rule-that-won-game-3-for-the-car-1452859734

[Muzzle of Dan]

So exactly what constitutes interference and at what point does the team interfered with get an automatic run? Any experts here?

 

Not taking sides on this one, but I am not sure I understand the rule or even know what it is.

 

LouieB

 

"OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball, and if the ball is in flight, directly toward, and near enough to the fielder, so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire, as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball, and has missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

[The High Heat]

Not touching home plate is irrelevant. The umpire's judgement is that the catcher wouldn't have had the opportunity to block the runner had the runner not been slowed by the obstruction. Had Craig jogged because he was counting on the obstruction as an automatic run, then the umpire could have ruled him out. It's not a given. The players must still play it out. Craig stumbled over Middlebrooks, hustled, and was awarded home because the time difference in the stumble cost him access to the plate. The obstruction was a fact of rule, and the awarding of home is the umpire's judgement based as a result of the obstruction. The umpires were right in calling obstruction and in awarding home because of it.

[Guest Don Draper]

Oh yes, I understand that, it's about making things right, and I'm not contesting the call at all.  It's just hard as a baseball viewer to watch a replay over and over again with a man sliding parallel to a base and the slo-mo "safe" hands.

[The High Heat]

It's unusual. The home plate umpire already knew obstruction was in play. He's also aware the players most likely don't know this. It's probably better he not make an enthusiastic call here. I think the demeanor of his call, then directing their attention to the call at third totally diffused any explosive reactions. I know the Sox argued plenty, but the umpire could have had a dozen guys down his throat had he merely shot his arms out and screamed safe repeatedly. I say he handled it perfectly.

 

 

I haven't heard, did the Red Sox protest this game?

[The Inside of Outside]

The real issue is the catcher shouldn't have made the throw. It's on him.

Bingo. Salty blew it. Second time in two games that the Sox have thrown it around like Little Leaguers.

[Guest Jules]

Actually I watched it again and Middlebrooks should've caught it.

[dagwave]

Unless it's been shunned due to the sensitive nature of our Society, in the immortal words of the great Harry Kalas:

 

"It was a bang-bang play."

[KevinG]

My wife made an interesting point tonight.  The Red Sox look like a bunch of meth addicts or child molesters (especially Clay Buchholz).  I am all for the beards and team unity, but a trim would be nice.