Baseball

Skeeter Barnes

(994 posts)

19. You don't call tripping a runner a clear case of obstruction?

Reply to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 27, 2013, 05:14 PM

Oct 2013

The play at the plate meant nothing. Obstruction had already been called. The runner was allowed to advance by rule after the third baseman tripped him. But you expect them to disregard the rules and talk about it for awhile until they decide it's OK to trip a runner who would have scored? The rule was applied exactly as written in the rule book so no, you weren't robbed. You just got beat.

And crying over balls and strikes is bush league. Quit whining and swing the bat.

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