Wild ending to Game 3 of World Series

[1fingeredknuckler]

The photo is just one instant - the video shows the umpire only glanced out to see where the ball went.

But there is another umpire, there are 6 umpires, this also shows the runner pushing the fielder down, not letting him get up, you have to watch the video all the way and pause it, not what they have to work with, however if the fielder can not make a play or an attempt in this case, he should have let the ball go and f7 throw him out at the plate, there are 3 at fault, first the catcher's bad throw, the fielder making an honest attempt , then the runner touching 3rd and backing uo then continuing without going over the base, once you go back wards, you have to retouch?

 

[Greenmonsters]

But there is another umpire, there are 6 umpires, this also shows the runner pushing the fielder down, not letting him get up, you have to watch the video all the way and pause it, not what they have to work with, however if the fielder can not make a play or an attempt in this case, he should have let the ball go and f7 throw him out at the plate, there are 3 at fault, first the catcher's bad throw, the fielder making an honest attempt , then the runner touching 3rd and backing uo then continuing without going over the base, once you go back wards, you have to retouch?

Another interesting thing about this play was that the LF foul line umpire interferred with Nava, the LF, who had to re-route around him to pick up the errant throw.

 

[chinamigarden]

But there is another umpire, there are 6 umpires, this also shows the runner pushing the fielder down, not letting him get up, you have to watch the video all the way and pause it, not what they have to work with, however if the fielder can not make a play or an attempt in this case, he should have let the ball go and f7 throw him out at the plate, there are 3 at fault, first the catcher's bad throw, the fielder making an honest attempt , then the runner touching 3rd and backing uo then continuing without going over the base, once you go back wards, you have to retouch?

If you pass a bag and the. Have to retreat to the previous bag then you have to retouch. This isn't the case here.

 

[chinamigarden]

Another interesting thing about this play was that the LF foul line umpire interferred with Nava, the LF, who had to re-route around him to pick up the errant throw.

When you have 100 umpires on the field or 6 even they are bound to be in the way. As it turned out that had zero impact as the obstruction had already occurred

 

[Comp]

I do not see where the runner retreating from the base and needing to retouch would even be a consideration on this play. The runner never had any intention of heading back to 2nd and with his head and body turned so far around looking for the ball his first step with his plant foot was back toward 2nd and LF while his other foot was still on the base. He also never "held" the fielder on the ground. He was not looking when he made his first move and tripped, placing his hands to balance himself which just happened to be on the fielder laying on the ground in front of him which caused him to trip on the first place. As for interference on the umpire, rules are pretty specific that only in a very limited number of situations can an umpire interfere, mainly a batted ball hitting un umpire before it passes an infielder. Other than that the umpires are part of the field.

 

[MTR]

But there is another umpire, there are 6 umpires, this also shows the runner pushing the fielder down, not letting him get up, you have to watch the video all the way and pause it, not what they have to work with, however if the fielder can not make a play or an attempt in this case, he should have let the ball go and f7 throw him out at the plate, there are 3 at fault, first the catcher's bad throw, the fielder making an honest attempt , then the runner touching 3rd and backing uo then continuing without going over the base, once you go back wards, you have to retouch?

If you have the urge and just HAVE to point a finger, point at the catcher. There was no play. The runner would have had to dropped dead of a heart attack or some other debilitating malady and fall directly to the ground for the defense to have a chance to get an out.

The runner was not holding the player down, but catching his balance. If the defender wasn't there, his hand would have probably went all the way to the ground. However, all is irrelevant as the moment the defender hindered his advancement the OBS rule was effected.

Who cares about what someone thinks happened to the LF, the umpire's job is to watch the ball and he is part of the field. As he turned, he began moving toward the wall to evacuate the area, but that, too, is irrelevant as they could not retire the runner and he would have scored, even if the umpire on the line tackled the LF and held him for a 3 count.

Interesting observation about retouching and completely the umpire's judgment. In the replay, it seems the runner had already started to turn his shoulders toward home with his right foot still on the base. If F5's left foot isn't right there and may have had some input into the runners next step, the runner could have possibly just pivoted on the base and not stepped off to start home. Since a runner determines his own base path and there seemed to be no clear indication the runner was attempting to advance toward 2B, I cannot see any decent umpire considering such a call. I will note that these are not conditions of the rule, but simply observations an umpire may use in applying his/her judgment.

And while the runner did trip over the defender's feet, the fact that the defender raised them is irrelevant to the call.

 

[obbay]

And while the runner did trip over the defender's feet, the fact that the defender raised them is irrelevant to the call.

Agreed.
And if anyone thinks he intentionally raised his feet, try lying down face first and then get up as quick as you can- did your legs stay down or did they go up as you tried to get up? no one gets up from the face down position without raising their feet unless you are doing push-ups.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

The photo is just one instant - the video shows the umpire only glanced out to see where the ball went.

But there is another umpire, there are 6 umpires, ...

And they normally work with 4. Whether it was proper 6-man mechanics to glance out there or not, it was trivial and you can't realistically expect the umpires working 1B and 3B to make a flawless transition to 6-man mechanics just for the playoffs.

As for your comment about MLB using replay, it wouldn't have mattered. MLB has not indicated this call should have been different.

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

The on ly reason i found this interesting was as i first stated, had i not seen 2 other fielders in the same game on 2 different plays, do the same thing as Middlebrook did, raise their feet on laying out, i would never have given this a thought, and a couple days ago, MLB network was running a 1/2 hour on highlight plays, and in this segment infielders, outfielders were all creating this same action as they laid out for flyballs or grounders,, both feet raise from the knees and go vertical, take some time if you are interested, and see what happens. They all have this reaction that was in the obstruction. But, who ever wrote the rule, covered the issue "intent or no intent". The best thing the F5 could have done was not make an attempt, and just let the left fielder have the play. I imagine the catchers will remember this play, maybe everyone, it can be at any base. The Arizona Fall league touched on it again with Joe Torre, but he stands by the call. Will it be discussed, they claim it will. Did Middlebook do it intentionally, if he did , they same reaction occurs by others, , it just so happens there are no base runners in the other cases. As i said, my only point is it can happen normally, .. This same umpire cost the tigers a perfect game last year on a call at first which he later admitted and felt horrible for it. You can google it, you.'ll find it
I'm at peace, it's over with.

I could be mistaken but i think all playoff games have 6, at least the WS always does, and they do expect them to get it right, that's why instant replay is being expanded.

 

[Umpire]

The on ly reason i found this interesting was as i first stated, had i not seen 2 other fielders in the same game on 2 different plays, do the same thing as Middlebrook did, raise their feet on laying out, i would never have given this a thought, and a couple days ago, MLB network was running a 1/2 hour on highlight plays, and in this segment infielders, outfielders were all creating this same action as they laid out for flyballs or grounders,, both feet raise from the knees and go vertical, take some time if you are interested, and see what happens. They all have this reaction that was in the obstruction. But, who ever wrote the rule, covered the issue "intent or no intent". The best thing the F5 could have done was not make an attempt, and just let the left fielder have the play. I imagine the catchers will remember this play, maybe everyone, it can be at any base. The Arizona Fall league touched on it again with Joe Torre, but he stands by the call. Will it be discussed, they claim it will. Did Middlebook do it intentionally, if he did , they same reaction occurs by others, , it just so happens there are no base runners in the other cases. As i said, my only point is it can happen normally, .. This same umpire cost the tigers a perfect game last year on a call at first which he later admitted and felt horrible for it. You can google it, you.'ll find it
I'm at peace, it's over with.

I could be mistaken but i think all playoff games have 6, at least the WS always does, and they do expect them to get it right, that's why instant replay is being expanded.

Your commentary is based upon the notion that the call was wrong, so it's hard to even begin addressing the absurd statements that you make.

First, the obstruction rule is written pretty much the same way as all other obstruction rules. If anything, it is more restrictive than other obstruction rules. That is, it is not obstruction if the fielder is about to receive a thrown ball; though, many rule sets say that it is obstruction if the fielder doesn't have actual possession of the ball (or isn't in the act of fielding a batted ball).

Second, even if you want to argue that the runner pushed the fielder back down as he was trying to get up, the very fact that the fielder was in a possession for the type of contact to occur is significant proof that it was obstruction.

Third, the reason you don't need intent is because to require intent you completely bastardize the game and disregard the equitable nature of the rule itself. And I'm not one who makes the BS argument that you can't judge intent. That's a ridiculous argument. What I'm saying is that to require intent would diminishes the effective nature of the rule. The rule is designed to right a wrong. It is intended to place of offense in the same position it would likely have been in had the defense not committed an infraction. Should the offense not be in the same position regardless of intent? Should we allow fielders to ignorantly stand around the infield and obstruct runners rounding bases? Making "no attempt" would not have been any better since he was in an obstructing position anyway. It should not make a difference whether the obstruction occurs as a result of an intentional act, ignorance, lack of knowledge or talent, or neglect. The effect is the same and it must be dealt with accordingly.

Fourth, the fact that it was the same umpire has nothing to do with the call. Too many fans get to know umpires because of one call. They are ignorant to who the umpire is or how he is perceived. If every employed person was judged and remembered by the worst significant mistake they made at work, we would all be unemployed. Do you happen to know that Jim Joyce is and has been ranked the highest among all umpires in a multitude of categories? Do you appreciate the fact that after "costing" a pitcher a perfect game he went back behind the plate the following night and had an accuracy rating of 99% on balls and strikes? Would you believe MLB offered him the night off but he rejected it and wanted to get back to work. I would have to believe that if Galarraga could go out and exchange the line up cards the next night and shake Jim Joyce's hand, maybe the rest of the ignorant baseball fans could have a fraction of his character and move on. And by the way, the play was in 2010, not last year.