Baseball

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)

9. That's the catch - they don't define (would be difficult to do) the amount of time "continues

Sun Oct 27, 2013, 07:37 AM

Oct 2013

to lie on the ground" means.

Of course I am thrilled - but fair is fair and it really didn't look intentional to me - although that last kick up of his feet looked a tiny bit fishy

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HOLY SHIT!!! Did you see the final play of tonight's World Series Game? [View all] gopiscrap Oct 2013 OP

I think the right call was made. hrmjustin Oct 2013 #1

I don't know gopiscrap Oct 2013 #2

I think the rule says it does not have to be intentional. hrmjustin Oct 2013 #4

The umpires held a presser Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #11

I am from Europe and didn't get into baseball til later in life gopiscrap Oct 2013 #23

You're welcome. Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #24

that should be interesting gopiscrap Oct 2013 #25

Looked intentional to me theHandpuppet Oct 2013 #21

Third baseman's legs went up Hayabusa Oct 2013 #3

he was trying to get up - had no idea what was going on - but no matter...obstruction is what it is. NRaleighLiberal Oct 2013 #5

You are right about the throw - but do you really think it looked like he was trying to Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2013 #10

What's odd is no one mentioned what a horrible through Salty made.... NRaleighLiberal Oct 2013 #6

I mentioned it VWolf Oct 2013 #30

That was pretty wild! And they made the correct call. Skeeter Barnes Oct 2013 #7

That's the catch - they don't define (would be difficult to do) the amount of time "continues Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2013 #9

yeah I was wondering about that last kick also gopiscrap Oct 2013 #13

There is no "catch". The rule is clear. Skeeter Barnes Oct 2013 #14

"The rule is clear" Except for the next sentence that states "...he has very likely has obstructed FailureToCommunicate Oct 2013 #18

You don't call tripping a runner a clear case of obstruction? Skeeter Barnes Oct 2013 #19

No, I don't. DId you watch the slo mo of the play? The 3rd baseman didn't FailureToCommunicate Oct 2013 #20

I didn't watch the game, but when I heard the lead-in on ESPN, and they said Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2013 #22

Correct call. joshcryer Oct 2013 #8

^^^ +1 Correct call. That rule merely puts a runner at the base he'd have reached .... groundloop Oct 2013 #28

The biggest problem is the apparent Red Sox inability to throw from home to third. Gore1FL Oct 2013 #12

Just wondering aloud... Skeeter Barnes Oct 2013 #15

I can see that as a valid argument Gore1FL Oct 2013 #16

I think it is too much, especially for the pitchers. Skeeter Barnes Oct 2013 #17

HOLY SHIT!!! Did you see the final play of the next nights World Series Game? Brother Buzz Oct 2013 #26

yup gopiscrap Oct 2013 #27

I hardly see how the Cardinals could be considered victims Brother Buzz Oct 2013 #29

because it was an ill timed mistake gopiscrap Oct 2013 #32

The ill-timed mistake was that fat pitch Seth Maness threw in the sixth Brother Buzz Oct 2013 #33

Ha ha I am laughing you're right but I think that was also an ill timed mistake!! gopiscrap Oct 2013 #34

The Sox may be at an advantage playing a team that is just learning the idiosyncrasies of the 'wall' Brother Buzz Oct 2013 #35

Yeah, but I have the feeling the Sox have some pretty good mo jo going gopiscrap Oct 2013 #36

Goes to show you VWolf Oct 2013 #31

Thank God it didn't affect the outcome of the series! joeybee12 Nov 2013 #37

agreed gopiscrap Nov 2013 #38

I tend to think it was the right call...although very unsual and you could joeybee12 Nov 2013 #39