Béisbol obstruction change

[Femur]

did you guys hear they are going to have a decision on the obstruction call in baseball after the the play on Saturday night? i am appalled. there is nothing wrong with the rule, and the only reason anyone is making a stink over it is because Boston lost on that play. call me a cynic, but the fact they want to give the umps the decision to measure "intent" on obstruction is \nothing more than a way to fix games so the Red Sox and Yankees can win more times. am i wrong?

ASIDE: one more thing of interest on the play: how did Jim Joyce not only get his reputation back after the perfect game disaster a few years ago, but now he is the standard for greatness in officiating? only in America. not for me, never for me. Joyce: you suck you bag of wind! love, femur

[Parker]

I was hoping that one play was going to crush the Red Sox so badly that they wouldn't win another game (EVER) but now if the decision somehow gets reversed and those goddamn derelicts dressed in baseball uniforms known as the Red Sox end up winning, at least it'll be only because they went crying to league officials to get a decision reversed on a game they lost fair and square. Fucking babies. I never thought I could hate the Sux more, but there it is.

[Virtual Jarmo]

It was the right call. Middlebrooks should have just laid there. He didn't. Joyce was widely regarded as one of the game's better umps before the imperfect game call. Femur, I think a lot of it is that he accepted responsibility and held himself accountable. Most umpires don't do that. The game is dominated by assholes like CB Bucknor, Joe West, and Angel Hernandez. Guys who will steal the show any chance that they get. Dana DeMuth's strike zone the other night was further proof.

It's a catch-22 for MLB. The umpires union is one of the strongest in all of sport. With more replay next season, PITCHf/x data, and QuesTec serving as umpire surveillance, MLB is trying to take the human element out of it while trying not to render umpires useless since there's no positive outcome from doing that. Some umpires are in favor of replay because, as somebody put it on Twitter, they'd rather be hated for a few minutes until a replay than be hated forever because of a blown call.

The rule is pretty obvious. The break of the rule was pretty obvious. The problem is that casual fans, which MLB absolutely must have interest from to succeed, can't believe that a World Series game was decided on that call. This, of course, from a sport that uses an exhibition game to determine homefield advantage in the World Series, which is far more egregious than any blown call.

Hopefully it's much ado about nothing.

If anything, we should outlaw catchers throwing to 3B when they have no chance to get the runner.

[Femur]

Parker - yes ! Burke - mostly, no.

obstruction is obstruction; there is ALREADY judgement in there. the runner doesn't just get the next base, he only gets it if the ump judges that the runner would have made it if a guy weren't in his way. intent has nothing to do with it.

you don't see it much at a professional level, because those guys know how to get out of the way of a runner, but at a little league game, i often see two or three times every night because the fielders are oblivious to the base paths. every time it comes up i always argue for the runner because (especially with kids) the end up trying to go around the fielder to be "nice" or gentlemanly, and this often is the difference in safe and out

[Virtual Jarmo]

Parker - yes ! Burke - mostly, no.

obstruction is obstruction; there is ALREADY judgement in there. the runner doesn't just get the next base, he only gets it if the ump judges that the runner would have made it if a guy weren't in his way. intent has nothing to do with it.

you don't see it much at a professional level, because those guys know how to get out of the way of a runner, but at a little league game, i often see two or three times every night because the fielders are oblivious to the base paths. every time it comes up i always argue for the runner because (especially with kids) the end up trying to go around the fielder to be "nice" or gentlemanly, and this often is the difference in safe and out

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with about my post? I said it was the right call. The fact that Craig nearly scored anyway despite the obstruction proves that it was the right call. He'd have scored standing up without Middlebrooks's strange way of "trying to get up".

[Femur]

...Middlebrooks should have just laid there. He didn't...

by this i thought you were agreeing that "intent" (as they are going to try to get the rule changed to covering) was the issue. if you are saying that just the mere fact his legs did the interfering by going up, and not that he did it on purpose, then we do agree and i apologize. goat fucker

[Virtual Jarmo]

...Middlebrooks should have just laid there. He didn't...

by this i thought you were agreeing that "intent" (as they are going to try to get the rule changed to covering) was the issue. if you are saying that just the mere fact his legs did the interfering by going up, and not that he did it on purpose, then we do agree and i apologize. goat fucker

I thought he intentionally lifted his legs to prevent Craig from going to the plate.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Parker - yes ! Burke - mostly, no.

obstruction is obstruction; there is ALREADY judgement in there. the runner doesn't just get the next base, he only gets it if the ump judges that the runner would have made it if a guy weren't in his way. intent has nothing to do with it.

you don't see it much at a professional level, because those guys know how to get out of the way of a runner, but at a little league game, i often see two or three times every night because the fielders are oblivious to the base paths. every time it comes up i always argue for the runner because (especially with kids) the end up trying to go around the fielder to be "nice" or gentlemanly, and this often is the difference in safe and out

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with about my post? I said it was the right call. The fact that Craig nearly scored anyway despite the obstruction proves that it was the right call. He'd have scored standing up without Middlebrooks's strange way of "trying to get up".

Yeah, definitely the right call. We were actually having a poker game with the baseball game on in the background, half of us red sox fans, half of us cards. As soon as it happened we were shouting obstruction (us cards faithful).

My drunk friend then did examples of how the way Middlebrooks got up was actually normal (trying to argue it wasn't obstruction), that was funny, for the most part though we all the same thing - it was a blatant trip and no matter what but sorry he tripped him, if he didn't Craig scores easily and nobody is talking about an interference call.

The biggest thing nobody is really talking about is WTF Jarrod Salty was doing? Craig was already 96 % at 3rd base and you're throwing the ball? And a wild chuck albeit. Bonehead move. Deserve to lose on that.

[Femur]

I thought he intentionally lifted his legs to prevent Craig from going to the plate.

okay, therein lies the source of our disagreement, then. i don't want the umpires judging intent on those plays instead of obstruction, because i feel the umps will simply let Boston make that out (because they get ratings) and go to the "he didn't intend to card" that can't be proved. this is what i wrote the post about in the first place.

[Virtual Jarmo]

I thought he intentionally lifted his legs to prevent Craig from going to the plate.

okay, therein lies the source of our disagreement, then. i don't want the umpires judging intent on those plays instead of obstruction, because i feel the umps will simply let Boston make that out (because they get ratings) and go to the "he didn't intend to card" that can't be proved. this is what i wrote the post about in the first place.

How is "intent" different from "obstruction"? There's no room for "incidental"?

Obstruction = intent.

[Femur]

obstruction is the guy is in the way for the basepath. period. he may be there to catch the ball, he may have stumbled there, whatever. that is the current rule and it is correct.

intent is what they want to change it to. they want the room to say the fielder got in the way but didn't intend to impede the runner's path. so in other words, if the fielder dives for the ball and doesn't notice he is right in the way of the runner, there might be no obstruction. that is wrong, if the guy is obstructed, he is obstructed. no room for judgement.

that is the theory; my biggest problem is the practical matter that the umps will most certainly use that wiggle room to get outcomes they want. fuck blue, fuck stripes, haters all.

[Virtual Jarmo]

obstruction is the guy is in the way for the basepath. period. he may be there to catch the ball, he may have stumbled there, whatever. that is the current rule and it is correct.

intent is what they want to change it to. they want the room to say the fielder got in the way but didn't intend to impede the runner's path. so in other words, if the fielder dives for the ball and doesn't notice he is right in the way of the runner, there might be no obstruction. that is wrong, if the guy is obstructed, he is obstructed. no room for judgement.

that is the theory; my biggest problem is the practical matter that the umps will most certainly use that wiggle room to get outcomes they want. fuck blue, fuck stripes, haters all.

You intend to obstruct. You don't obstruct accidentally. You try to get out of the way, which is not obstruction, it's incidental.

There's really no difference to the rule. It's just semantics.