Wild ending to Game 3 of World Series

[chinamigarden]

Jim Leyland was interviewed this week, after he announced his retirement. The call Jim Joyce made in the 28 batter perfect game came up Mitch Albom asked him "were you upset with umpire Jim Joyce?"
Answer
"The truth of the matter is I felt so bad for him. He's a great umpire."

 

[MTR]

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.

The fact that the player raised his feet, albeit a muscular reaction, was not necessarily the cause of OBS. The fact that the player's existence in a position that hindered the runner is why the OBS was called. If F5 didn't raise his feet and the runner was hindered, it still would have been OBS.

Seems to me that those who want to concentrate on the 3rd baseman's legs/feet or believe intent should be part of the rule, do not understand the rule or its part in the game.

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

Jim Leyland was interviewed this week, after he announced his retirement. The call Jim Joyce made in the 28 batter perfect game came up Mitch Albom asked him "were you upset with umpire Jim Joyce?"
Answer
"The truth of the matter is I felt so bad for him. He's a great umpire."

" which he later admitted and felt horrible for it. "

which is what i pointed out!

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

Ignorance isn't the issue, intelligence of evaluating a rule when a player did a normal reaction, that he had "no other choice", if he can't be there, he had no obligation to make the play, if the runner is using him to get up himself after sliding into the base, the call was made because the fielder was lying on the ground, the feet were construed to hinder the runner, as i said if it was intentional
by Middlebrook it was a judgement call/ can your wrist be further from your body than your elbow, that was a judgement call also but the ruke is wrong,, and it's NOT INGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

 

[chinamigarden]

" which he later admitted and felt horrible for it. "

which is what i pointed out!

And yet he hasn't apologized for the obs call in game 3. Oh yeah probably because it was the correct call

 

[Comp]

You have no idea if the feet being up is what ultimately led to the umpire making the call or not. The fact of the matter is, the fielder merely being there even if his feet werent up was in fact obstruction.

 

[MTR]

Actually, Jim Joyce addressed it in the postgame conference. He mentions it while recounting the play at the 1:11 mark and then says "the feet really didn't play into it too much" at 1:50 mark while answering a follow-up question about it.

And this was a good example as to why people get confused. You have these allegedly knowledgeable journalists who all think they have a different word or punctuation that is going to change an answer and repeat the same basic question numerous times. And the umpires end up dummying down their comments to a level they think these reporters will understand in hopes it will end the line of questions on that subject.

And as is evident, at least with one poster and a couple of these reporters, people always want to make an excuse for someone and pretty much discard an equal concern for the other player's rights