Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Who are the 2013 World Series Champions? (post in how many games)


  • Total voters
    12
141 - 160 of 300 Posts

·
**** the clippers
Joined
·
16,459 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

Ya you right and all of the umpires + people that work in baseball where wrong. Lets fire all of them and hire you because your right and all of them people that have been doing this for 20+ years and went by the rule in the rule book where wrong....

Move on to the next game
Ad populum? That's all you got? Guess I shouldn't be surprised considering that you can barely string two sentences together.
 

·
**** the clippers
Joined
·
16,459 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

Nice try.

You're wrong, dude. Obvious call, Cards win.
Not so nice try.

I'm right, "dude." Jim Joyce is a cornball who tanked the series. And your boys benefited from it so you're cool with it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
68,862 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.
I as much as anyone would prefer the Cardinals to lose (though only in a lesser of two evils situation), but it seems to fit with this pretty well. I feel like it might not have been called if Middlebrooks hadn't lifted his legs up the way that he did, though.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
68,862 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

As for the basepath bit:

A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely
That's without even considering the 3 feet range runners get.
 

·
**** the clippers
Joined
·
16,459 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

I as much as anyone would prefer the Cardinals to lose (though only in a lesser of two evils situation), but it seems to fit with this pretty well. I feel like it might not have been called if Middlebrooks hadn't lifted his legs up the way that he did, though.
Very likely? What if he's out of the basepath and the runner seemingly goes out of his way to stumble into him?
 

·
**** the clippers
Joined
·
16,459 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

As for the basepath bit:



That's without even considering the 3 feet range runners get.
What tag is this? The one that occurred after the supposed interference already happened?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
68,862 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

The rulebook supports what happened. You don't want to accept that, and that's fine. There's no sense continuing here. The series is 2-1. Move on.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
115,886 Posts
Discussion Starter #153
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

I was probably more shocked than pissed. But Salty should've never thrown that ****ing ball. Waaaay too risky. I was yelling right before he did.
 

·
**** the clippers
Joined
·
16,459 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

The rulebook supports what happened. You don't want to accept that, and that's fine. There's no sense continuing here. The series is 2-1. Move on.
No, it doesn't, no I won't, cock off with your patronizing bullshit.
 

·
aka Chilltown
Joined
·
3,750 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

A thrown ball is not a batted ball. Runners only have to avoid defensive players if the ball hasn't been touched yet. If a throw leads a defensive player into a runner, that's obstruction. I thought it was a great, gutsy call. Bottom line is, without the trip, the runner is safe at home.
This is faulty logic I think.

Looking at a different scenario that happens quite frequently, why is there no interference called on a 2nd baseman or SS on a Steal attempt in which the catcher's throw makes it to the outfield and the runner attempts to go to third and gets thrown out there from center?

It was a pretty bad call to be made there last night. But, it should have never come to that because Salty is a ****ing moron.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

Salty benched for Ross tonight. Thank you based god.

Drew's still in there but between him and Middlebrooks who really cares.
Drew can play defense. Middlebrooks shit a pile of bricks every time the ball came near him and hits nearly as well as Drew. **** Middlebrooks.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Re: 2013 WORLD SERIES: St. Louis Cardinals (2) vs. Boston Red Sox (1)

While you're right, it doesn't matter in terms of application of the rule.
If true. I think a winning strategy would be for every base runner to tackle available infielders and claim interference. That's essentially what happened here. Craig knocked Middlebrooks down and then grabbed him, if there's interference involved here it's on the runner. This is the second time this has happened to Boston and the second time they've gotten the shaft.
 
141 - 160 of 300 Posts
Top