I'm still waiting for you to tell me what argument I'm making is wrong, why won't you do that? because you come into this thread telling us how smart and knowledgeable youse bees and then you attack some straw man?
I know what the rule is, I know what the umpires have said, I saw what happened that night. I said it's a lousy rule, it's shameful it applies to a man laying on the ground like that under such circumstances, I said that's especially true when considering where Middlebrooks was laying and Craig was running, and I said MLB should consider tweaking that rule.
I also pointed out Joyce was wrong, as in categorically incorrect, when he said Middlebrooks was laying on the chalk
so, once again, tell me what I don't know Mr. expert, stop ducking and diving
not many people saying it wasn't, just people arguing as if that's what people are saying so it's easy to get sidetracked
please
What are you looking for me to say? It was textbook obstruction. You keep talking about how unfair it is. Among people trained on what is obstruction, there is no controversy. 100% of professional umpires would say that is obstruction without question.
You know it was the right call. There will be no amendment to the rules. Joe Torre probably knows less about umpiring than you. He was just shooting from the hip.
PP goes yard, great observation about the play at 2nd base
maybe somebody can tell us why obstruction is NOT called in those situations? ball behind the defender, runner makes contact with defender, is that not "textbook" . Or maybe there's a tad bit of subjectivity? eh?
Horseshit and here is why.
How many times do you see someone steal 2nd where the ball goes into center field, then the runner and fielder get tangled up when the runner tries to go to third?
You never see an obstruction call made.
I get the rule. Technically the ump is right but how do you possibly call it in this situation?
Fine I better not ever see that fuckin fat ass attention whore let the neighborhood play around 2nd base go on a double play then.
My whole contention is that Joyce had more reason not to call it, then call it.
If the runner is impeded, then it is called. If they both get to the base at the same time and collide, then nothing is called. But if he gets up to run and is then impeded, that is obstruction. It doesn't give him the next base though. It has to reasonable to assume that he would have been safe if there was no obstruction. And if he goes back to the base, he stays there, even if obstruction was called. If he takes off and is out by a mile, he's still out. It's basically just to compensate the runner. That part is subjective, yes. It is up to the umpire's judgment if he would have been safe with no obstruction.
PP goes yard, great observation about plays at 2nd base
maybe somebody can tell us why obstruction is NOT called in those situations? ball behind the defender, runner makes contact with defender, is that not "textbook" . Or maybe there's a tad bit of subjectivity? eh?
OK, you're getting a whole lot closer. I never said it wasn't the right call, I never said it wasn't a "fair" call either, I said it's a lousy rule and then speculated that MLB may consider tweaking it after that WS call. Then the Executive VP of baseball says MLB is going to review the rule in the off season. You simply dismiss his comment because he doesn't know anything about umpiring. Not sure why he would need to know about umpiring, but if the man who reviews such rules says they're going to look at it, I'm going to take him for his word. I concede, nothing may change.
But, what about the argument made by PatPatriot? why isn't obstruction called on all those plays at second base when the ball goes by the defender and there's contact between the runner and the defender when the runner tries to advance to third base? I don't recall seeing that called even one time, how can that be? is there a difference? is that not "textbook" obstruction?
answer the question about why obstruction is not called on steal attempts of 2nd base, don't play dumb Mr expert
all i know is, mlb umpires got a sweet gig. they make $300k or more...they have a kick-ass union so they get great perks like free meals during the season, summer vacation time, etc...plus, they get november - february off each year.
i'd certainly do it if i could...even if that would open myself up to all sorts of criticism on the r/x.
i'd certainly do it if i could...even if that would open myself up to all sorts of criticism on the r/x.
oh, so now you're telling us when they make the call when we're telling you they never make the call. To me, you're citing a rule that's never enforced in that situation (steal of 2nd)
as anyone ever seen obstruction called at 2nd base when the ball gets past the defender, and the defender then makes contact with the runner while the runner is standing up attempting to advance? I don't think I've ever seen it called once.
i think illini is saying that, in that example, if the runner tried to advance to third and was throw out, the umpire would use his judgment to determine if he would have been safe at third if he were not tangled up with the shortstop. if the ump thought he would've been safe at third, he calls obstruction and gives him third base. if he thought he'd have been out anyway, he calls him out.
I know what the rule is and what he's saying. What I'm saying is that I've never once seen it called, have you?
