NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-25-2013, 10:33 AM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRBAKER View Post
They gave Salty and error bc he did not come off the base to grab the throw, allowing the trailing runner (Descalso) to move up a base. Had he come off the base and caught the throw (or locked it) Breslow would have never touched or thrown the ball.
Sounds like more a mental misjudgment than a physical error to me, but whatever. It didn't change the outcome. That guy still makes it to third and scores on the single anyways.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18

Last edited by conor912; 10-25-2013 at 10:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 10-25-2013, 11:34 AM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Very similar to the mental lapse Wainwright had in Game 1, he never touched the ball.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 10-25-2013, 12:18 PM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,930
Default

I think technically he is charged with the error for not catching a catchable ball, which then allowed a runner to advance to 3b. It's a close/questionable call, as they could have charged it on the throw IMO.
__________________
Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable

If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:29 PM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRBAKER View Post
Very similar to the mental lapse Wainwright had in Game 1, he never touched the ball.
Um, yeah, exactly like that....for which Wainwright was not charged with an error.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:46 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by conor912 View Post
Um, yeah, exactly like that....for which Wainwright was not charged with an error.
The difference being that Salty touched the ball.
Had he caught it there would have been no throw, no advance, etc.
I can see it either way. The biggest mistake was that the throw didn't go to 2nd.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:06 PM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,292
Default

Nice to see great umpiring. Made the right call again!
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:15 PM
drmondobueno's Avatar
drmondobueno drmondobueno is offline
Keith
ke.ith tem.ple
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Eastern sierras, Calif
Posts: 949
Default Obstruction

Unreal chain of events! Talk about having victory snatched out of the mouth of disaster...any rulebook gurus know when the obstruction rule went into the MLB rulebook? Never seen anything like it. Crazy, just nuts.

Beats the hell out of basketball.
__________________
T206 156/518 second time around
R312 49/50
1959 Topps 568/572
1958, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1957, 1956…
...whatever I want
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:34 PM
GoldenAge50s's Avatar
GoldenAge50s GoldenAge50s is offline
FredYoung
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: RI
Posts: 7,869
Default

I understand the obstruction rule, but one simple question remains--What is the player (Middlebrooks) supposed to do?---suddenly become invisable?

The call was correct for the rule as written, but it is a Bull---t rule!

---and before anyone says Will tripped him by raising his legs, the runner tripped his own self up on Will's back/butt, not on his legs.

No game should be decided like that, no matter who you root for! The rule definitely needs to be rewritten immediately!
__________________
I've learned that I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:37 PM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s View Post
I understand the obstruction rule, but one simple question remains--What is the player (Middlebrooks) supposed to do?---suddenly become invisable?

The call was correct for the rule as written, but it is a Bull---t rule!

---and before anyone says Will tripped him by raising his legs, the runner tripped his own self up on Will's back/butt, not on his legs.

No game should be decided like that, no matter who you root for! The rule definitely needs to be rewritten immediately!
Doesn't matter. Craig has a right to the base and base paths and as long as he is within those lines then the responsibility is on the fielder.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:50 PM
GoldenAge50s's Avatar
GoldenAge50s GoldenAge50s is offline
FredYoung
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: RI
Posts: 7,869
Default

Doesn't matter. Craig has a right to the base and base paths and as long as he is within those lines then the responsibility is on the fielder.

All well & good, but Middlebrooks was flat on the ground w/ the runner basically on top of him---he can't roll away, he can't get up & he certainly can't suddenly become "the invisable man" now, can he?

There is no common sense being applied in allowing what happened, to happen!
__________________
I've learned that I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:55 PM
Iron Horse's Avatar
Iron Horse Iron Horse is offline
Ruben
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 752
Default

The rule needs to read: In a case like this the runner is safe and returns to the original base (in this case 3rd). Only if the umpires rule there was intent then the runner is awarded the next base even if thrown out.
Just my thought. I am neither a Red Sox nor Cardinals fan, but to end a World Series game like this?
__________________
Ruben
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 10-26-2013, 10:59 PM
mattsey9's Avatar
mattsey9 mattsey9 is offline
Mike Mattsey
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 632
Default

I despise the Cardinals with every fiber of my being, but the call was correct. Buzzard's Luck for Middlebrooks but the rule is the rule. If they don't apply it then it isn't fair to the Cardinals.

I'd love to know what the Cardinals brass have been sacrificing at their Satanic altar beneath their stadium all these years. I'd send some to Chicago...
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 10-26-2013, 11:17 PM
gabrinus's Avatar
gabrinus gabrinus is offline
Jerry Tate
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 968
Default secret

secret

Last edited by gabrinus; 10-26-2013 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 10-26-2013, 11:36 PM
soxinseven soxinseven is offline
Steven Sadler
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Salem, Ma.
Posts: 879
Default

Does anyone know if the runner has to touch home plate in that situation? I don't believe Craig did. I know he's awarded home plate on the obstruction call, but isn't it just like a walk off where he needs to make contact with the plate? Just curious.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 10-27-2013, 12:36 AM
ctownboy ctownboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 982
Default

Fredyoung,

Sucks for you as a Red Sox fan HOWEVER if the rule isn't written like it is then what is to keep Middlebrooks from sticking his leg out and tripping Craig once Middlebrooks sees that the ball is down in the bull pen and Craig is going to easily score the winning run?

Face it, if Middlebrooks does what he did then interference is going to be called and the Cardinals win the game. If Middlebrooks lays on the ground motionless, Craig steps over him and runs unimpeded to home plate and the Cardinals win the game.

David
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 10-27-2013, 12:41 AM
ctownboy ctownboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 982
Default

Iron horse,

On fangraphs, they posted a pole about this play and used rule 7.whatever as the guide. However, that is the wrong rule to use. On the MLB network, they showed the umpires' interview and also Joe Torre from the Commish's office. They used rule 2.whatever which deals with interference calls. Rule 7.whatever only deals with what should happen after interference has been called. Two different rules addressing two different things.

David
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 10-27-2013, 02:48 AM
Orioles1954 Orioles1954 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxinseven View Post
Does anyone know if the runner has to touch home plate in that situation? I don't believe Craig did. I know he's awarded home plate on the obstruction call, but isn't it just like a walk off where he needs to make contact with the plate? Just curious.
I don't know the specific rule but his right foot did graze the plate.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 10-27-2013, 03:58 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 9,384
Default Sacrifices

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsey9 View Post
I despise the Cardinals with every fiber of my being, but the call was correct. Buzzard's Luck for Middlebrooks but the rule is the rule. If they don't apply it then it isn't fair to the Cardinals.

I'd love to know what the Cardinals brass have been sacrificing at their Satanic altar beneath their stadium all these years. I'd send some to Chicago...
Squirrels
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 10-27-2013, 04:55 AM
David W David W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,731
Default

I am pretty sure Middlebrooks threw his legs up on purpose.

And why not, he had nothing to lose, as Craig scores easily if he doesn't try to do something.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 10-27-2013, 06:33 AM
johnmh71 johnmh71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 552
Default

How about actually calling the alleged obstruction when it takes place instead of after the runner is thrown out at home? They have only played three games and the umpiring of DeMuth has to seriously be questioned.
__________________
John Hat.cher
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:05 AM
GaryPassamonte's Avatar
GaryPassamonte GaryPassamonte is offline
GaryPassamonte
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Morris NY
Posts: 1,540
Default

I believe obstruction is a delayed dead ball call. If the runner is safe, the obstruction is waived. I'm pulling for the Red Sox and don't like the outcome, but the umpire made the correct call.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:07 AM
MVSNYC MVSNYC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954 View Post
I don't know the specific rule but his right foot did graze the plate.
Actually, i am not sure his foot grazed the plate. i just paused it and watched in slow-mo. unless he stood up and stepped on the plate (the camera cut away from the plate after the slide).

Last edited by MVSNYC; 10-27-2013 at 07:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:13 AM
soxinseven soxinseven is offline
Steven Sadler
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Salem, Ma.
Posts: 879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVSNYC View Post
Actually, i am not sure his foot grazed the plate. i just paused it and watched in slow-mo. unless he stood up and stepped on the plate (the camera cut away from the plate after the slide).
That's the way I am seeing it also. I am sure it doesn't matter because obstruction was called and it is an awarded base. I doubt it can be appealed and if it was, he would probably just have to step on the base to end the game.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:14 AM
TUM301 TUM301 is offline
H Murphy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 1,237
Default

Sox fan here, the rule is what it is kind of like the end of the Pats/Jets last Sunday. Not real impressed with this ump. crew, which I think is ranked among the bottom quarter in the majors. The strike zone once again was all over the place. Salty you aren`t J Bench and Middlebrooks has to take 1 step off the bag and catch that throw. Sox and Boucholtz tonite, have to get 6+ from him as bullpen is running out of gas. P S thought Napoli couild have been p h`ed in the 9`th but we`ll see tonite. I think the Sox tie it up and Mon is the swing game of the series !! GO SOX !!
__________________
H Murphy Collection https://www.flickr.com/photos/154296763@N05/
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:53 AM
MVSNYC MVSNYC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,764
Default

Someone actually just explained this to me...It didn't matter if he touched home plate or not.

Obstruction was called...the runner was tagged before he touched home, and the home plate umpire made the decision that Craig would have scored if it wasn't for the obstruction. So he does not have to touch the plate, he was "awarded" the run.

Last edited by MVSNYC; 10-27-2013 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:56 AM
birdman42's Avatar
birdman42 birdman42 is offline
Bill T.
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Merlin, west of Bawtymore
Posts: 392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmh71 View Post
How about actually calling the alleged obstruction when it takes place instead of after the runner is thrown out at home? They have only played three games and the umpiring of DeMuth has to seriously be questioned.
3B umpire called it immediately, signaling to the home plate umpire. Joyce did a good job of keeping track of both the ball as it went into left field and the action around the bag.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 10-27-2013, 08:04 AM
yanks12025's Avatar
yanks12025 yanks12025 is offline
Brock
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 2,147
Default

Bush league play by Will. He purposely put his feet up to stop craig.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 10-27-2013, 08:22 AM
drmondobueno's Avatar
drmondobueno drmondobueno is offline
Keith
ke.ith tem.ple
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Eastern sierras, Calif
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orioles1954 View Post
I don't know the specific rule but his right foot did graze the plate.
Fyi, this has nothing to do with the incident of interference. Craig could have stopped off at Starbucks and taken in a movie, it would not matter. Obstruction is obstruction. What happens after the fact means nothing, except to us crazed fans....what a game. Definitely one for the ages. The whole game was a war. Kudos to both teams.
__________________
T206 156/518 second time around
R312 49/50
1959 Topps 568/572
1958, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1957, 1956…
...whatever I want
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 10-27-2013, 08:29 AM
soxinseven soxinseven is offline
Steven Sadler
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Salem, Ma.
Posts: 879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVSNYC View Post
Someone actually just explained this to me...It didn't matter if he touched home plate or not.

Obstruction was called...the runner was tagged before he touched home, and the home plate umpire made the decision that Craig would have scored if it wasn't for the obstruction. So he does not have to touch the plate, he was "awarded" the run.
That is what I assumed, thank you for confirming. Obviously, I have never seen a play like this before!
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 10-27-2013, 09:35 AM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmh71 View Post
How about actually calling the alleged obstruction when it takes place instead of after the runner is thrown out at home? They have only played three games and the umpiring of DeMuth has to seriously be questioned.
No, how about attaching electrodes to Saltalamachia's brain so he can be electrocuted every time he thinks throwing the ball is a good idea. His arm is a f***ing liability out there.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 10-27-2013, 11:29 AM
GoldenAge50s's Avatar
GoldenAge50s GoldenAge50s is offline
FredYoung
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: RI
Posts: 7,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks12025 View Post
Bush league play by Will. He purposely put his feet up to stop craig.
WRONG!

The runner actually tripped over Will's upper leg/hip area & then stumbled, putting his hand on Will's back to catch himself! If anything he helped hold Will down & his raised legs had nothing to do w/ it!

You're letting your Red Sox hatred cloud your vision & unbiased view once again!
__________________
I've learned that I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 10-27-2013, 11:30 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks12025 View Post
Bush league play by Will. He purposely put his feet up to stop craig.
Not quite as bush as Alex "slappy" Rodriguez.....


I think the call was correct. Interference happened whether intentional or not.

The rule doesn't need changing. Adding an umpire having to determine intent is not going to be better. There's just too many ways to be slick about it then claim no intent. That's not a great situation for the fielder on a play like this, but it's the best way for everyone.

I'm sad to see the Sox lose that way, but that's how the game goes sometimes.

Steve B
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 10-27-2013, 12:37 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 9,384
Default 1985

For Red Sox fans who think the call was wrong, we Cardinals fans who remember October 26, 1985, can relate
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 10-27-2013, 12:47 PM
yanks12025's Avatar
yanks12025 yanks12025 is offline
Brock
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 2,147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s View Post
WRONG!

The runner actually tripped over Will's upper leg/hip area & then stumbled, putting his hand on Will's back to catch himself! If anything he helped hold Will down & his raised legs had nothing to do w/ it!

You're letting your Red Sox hatred cloud your vision & unbiased view once again!
I disagree. First off me being a yankee fan or my hatred for the sox have nothing to do with it considering there's tons of people who seen the same thing from seeing the play. Second did you even see the play? It's obvious that middlebrooks did it to either A. Trip craig B. Slow him down. Middlebrooks was on his stomach, so you're telling me when you're on your stomach the best way to get up is to bend your legs back towards your back. NO

Last edited by yanks12025; 10-27-2013 at 12:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 10-27-2013, 01:02 PM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yanks12025 View Post
I disagree. First off me being a yankee fan or my hatred for the sox have nothing to do with it considering there's tons of people who seen the same thing from seeing the play. Second did you even see the play? It's obvious that middlebrooks did it to either A. Trip craig B. Slow him down. Middlebrooks was on his stomach, so you're telling me when you're on your stomach the best way to get up is to bend your legs back towards your back. NO
I agree with you on this one. it was subtle, but it was there none-the-less. That said, Will had to try and I don't blame him.

I think there are two separate arguments here. 1)did he obstruct (or attempt to) in any way and 2) did the subtlty of the offense deserve to get called (as the deciding factor in a WS game, no less). I know a game is a game, but most officials in most sports typically let players be a hair more aggressive in championship play. To me, this is like ending a game on calling a runner safe on a second baseman's ghost tag on a double play attempt.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18

Last edited by conor912; 10-27-2013 at 01:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 10-27-2013, 01:43 PM
Jantz's Avatar
Jantz Jantz is offline
Archive
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,737
Default

The biggest problem I have with the play was the weak slide made by Molina. A little more aggressive base running and the throw to third would have never happen.

Just my 2 cents.


Jantz
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 10-27-2013, 01:50 PM
Paul S Paul S is offline
P. Sp.ec.tor
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Landlocked by High Toll Fees
Posts: 2,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantz View Post
The biggest problem I have with the play was the weak slide made by Molina. A little more aggressive base running and the throw to third would have never happen.

Just my 2 cents.


Jantz
Totally +1. What was that? He might as well of given him a pat on the butt.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 10-27-2013, 02:01 PM
Deertick Deertick is offline
Jim M.arinari
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Where Forgeries Abound, FL
Posts: 1,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
Totally +1. What was that? He might as well of given him a pat on the butt.
Paul,
At least he got to the bag. If it was his brother Jose he'd still be "running".

Conor,
What if a batted ball had nicked a runner? Is that too ticky-tack to call? A balk? Where is the line?
__________________
"If you ever discover the sneakers for far more shoes in your everyday individual, and also have a wool, will not disregard the going connected with sneakers by Isabel Marant a person." =AcellaGet
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 10-27-2013, 02:47 PM
KCRfan1 KCRfan1 is offline
Lou Simcoe
L0u Sim.coe
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Olathe KS
Posts: 1,718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop View Post
For Red Sox fans who think the call was wrong, we Cardinals fans who remember October 26, 1985, can relate
No need to rehash " The Call ". St. Louis could have went out and won game 7, instead they got blown out. Bird fans always hang the I - 70 Series on a " blown " call. All you had to do was win the seventh game. Spilled milk.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 10-27-2013, 04:11 PM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deertick View Post
Paul,
At least he got to the bag. If it was his brother Jose he'd still be "running".

Conor,
What if a batted ball had nicked a runner? Is that too ticky-tack to call? A balk? Where is the line?
Jim, I don't nessesarily disagree, although neither of your examples include hard-nosed play. Neither a ball knicking a runner or a balk are comprised of two competitors fighting it out. I suppose for me, that's the line, IMO. That said, on a technical level, the call was right.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 10-27-2013, 04:28 PM
Fred's Avatar
Fred Fred is offline
Fred
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,245
Default

Why complain about the in obstruction call? It's done, it's over and the game went to the Cardinals - time to move on. It was a pretty good game up until that point. I think those were just two poor base running choices and the Cardinals came out on top, in spite of themselves.

What should the Sox do?

Play Napoli behind the plate and have both him and Big Papi in the liine up?

or

Play Napoli at first and sit Big Papi?

or

Play Big Papi at first and sit Napoli?
__________________
fr3d c0wl3s - always looking for OJs and other 19th century stuff. PM or email me if you have something
cool you're looking to find a new home for.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 10-27-2013, 04:35 PM
Paul S Paul S is offline
P. Sp.ec.tor
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Landlocked by High Toll Fees
Posts: 2,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred View Post
What should the Sox do?

Play Napoli behind the plate and have both him and Big Papi in the liine up?
or
Play Napoli at first and sit Big Papi?
or
Play Big Papi at first and sit Napoli?
Gotta play Ortiz. He's got the hot hand.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 10-27-2013, 04:55 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCRfan1 View Post
No need to rehash " The Call ". St. Louis could have went out and won game 7, instead they got blown out. Bird fans always hang the I - 70 Series on a " blown " call. All you had to do was win the seventh game. Spilled milk.
No bad call and no need for a Game 7. Shouldn't have to win 5 games.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 10-27-2013, 05:12 PM
conor912's Avatar
conor912 conor912 is offline
C0nor D0na.hue
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred View Post
Why complain about the in obstruction call? It's done, it's over and the game went to the Cardinals - time to move on. It was a pretty good game up until that point. I think those were just two poor base running choices and the Cardinals came out on top, in spite of themselves.

What should the Sox do?

Play Napoli behind the plate and have both him and Big Papi in the liine up?

or

Play Napoli at first and sit Big Papi?

or

Play Big Papi at first and sit Napoli?
While I would love to see both bats in the lineup, I'd be shocked to see Napoli behind the plate. I'm more concerned with getting Nava the hell out of there. I understand he covers more ground than Gomes and Busch has a big left field, but that's a trade off I'd be willing to make. Nava's bat is dead weight out there.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 10-27-2013, 05:23 PM
kmac32's Avatar
kmac32 kmac32 is offline
Ken McMillan
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ponte Vedra, Florida
Posts: 2,584
Default

The obstruction rule needs to be changed as any rule that gives the Cardinals a win can't be good.
__________________
Favorite MLB quote. " I knew we could find a place to hide you". Lee Smith talking about my catching abilities at Cubs Fantasy camp.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 10-27-2013, 05:24 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmac32 View Post
The obstruction rule needs to be changed as any rule that gives the Cardinals a win can't be good.
Well you would need to change the rule that says the team that scores the most runs wins too!
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 10-27-2013, 05:59 PM
kmac32's Avatar
kmac32 kmac32 is offline
Ken McMillan
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ponte Vedra, Florida
Posts: 2,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRBAKER View Post
Well you would need to change the rule that says the team that scores the most runs wins too!
I cheer for the Cubs and anyone playing the Cardinals. Any day the Cards lose is a good day in my book. LOL
__________________
Favorite MLB quote. " I knew we could find a place to hide you". Lee Smith talking about my catching abilities at Cubs Fantasy camp.

Last edited by kmac32; 10-27-2013 at 06:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 10-27-2013, 06:12 PM
novakjr novakjr is offline
David Nova.kovich Jr.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 20 miles east of the Mistake
Posts: 2,269
Default

Unbiased opinion. As I have no rooting interest in either team. Well, I'm not too big on the Sox, but indifferent enough, that I just wanna see some good ball from both teams here.

Personally, I think the interferece call, was probably wrong. Not as a result of the umpire, but a result of the rule being completely overwritten, to the point where interpretation can come into play.. The runner having been called safe, as a result of the interference call, was definitely correct though. I only say that it shouldn't have been called, because looking at it, as a result of the play at third, I really don't think there was anything either of them could've done to avoid that contact. If anything, Craig could've avoided getting tangled up there. As far as Middlebrooks legs coming up, I really don't think he threw them up. It appeared that he tried to bounce up after the dive, and slipped.. But I'll also agree, that the contact was more in the ass area, than legs, so where the legs went should be irrelevant. I'd chalk it up as "incidental contact". And from the specifications of the rule, it appears that they were trying to say that contact as a direct result of a clean play, should not constitute interference, but it looks a bunch of idiots wrote it.

Now, given that it's written the way it's written. I'd have probably been ok whether it was called or not, because honestly, I think both would've been correct. The whole situation is pretty crappy, and shouldn't have happened.. And I fault the morons that wrote the rule the way they did. Had the thing been cut and dry, with no possible interpretations, we would've gotten the absolute correct call, with no arguments from anyone. Because I think both sides have a legit argument here.

Having said that, it's still the World Series, fellas. It was an interesting game, and they gave us something we really hadn't seen before. Let's just enjoy the series. And from a guy with no rooting interest. Go Baseball!!!
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 10-27-2013, 06:20 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmac32 View Post
I cheer for the Cubs and anyone playing the Cardinals. Any day the Cards lose is a good day in my book. LOL
Ken, Believe me I understand the Cubs-Cards angle. Thankfully the way history has played out the Cards fans don't have to worry good or bad much about the Cubs.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 10-27-2013, 07:27 PM
KCRfan1 KCRfan1 is offline
Lou Simcoe
L0u Sim.coe
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Olathe KS
Posts: 1,718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRBAKER View Post
No bad call and no need for a Game 7. Shouldn't have to win 5 games.
Not true, the game was still there for the Cards to win, but like I said it's crying over spilled milk. Anyways, many clubs could be more successful if they would look at how the Cards run their organization. My Royals certainly could learn a thing or two. St Louis has great ownership and their ability to scout and develope talent is unsurpassed. They do it all without breaking the bank. The Cards rotation is set for the next ten years with those young arms and I expect to see a few more WS appearances as a result. Fun team to watch.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB: Chopped or Heavily Miscut Dodgers or Dodgers with Crazy Printing Anomalies 4reals 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T 7 09-20-2013 07:16 PM
FT: Bell Brand Dodgers, Morrell, and Graded for RAW Bell Brand Dodgers 4reals 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T 1 02-14-2013 12:56 PM
Anyone have a vintage Brooklyn Dodgers and/or St. Louis Cardinals pennant available? cwazzy Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T 6 01-30-2013 02:49 PM
56 Cardinals rnisly Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 6 05-31-2009 10:28 PM
Just Listed a bunch of Vintage Pennants on Ebay - Tigers, Phillies, Cardinals etc Archive Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T 0 02-25-2008 09:04 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:34 PM.


ebay GSB