Cornell Hockey Sightings

[rhovorka]

I agree with Keith.  When you don't want flyballs, Lowe's the right choice.  And a tired sinkerball pitcher is generally an effective sinkerball pitcher, anyway.

I do hate to 2nd guess Ken Macha, but Zito was tiring in the 6th, and it was obvious before ManRam's HR.  And Melhuse for Dye can be overlooked because of Melhuse's success in the series, even though I didn't agree with the move.  Long struck out on the exact same pitch the previous batter did...he should've known it was coming.  Then again, I'm not in the batter's box.

[dsr11]

So whats up with the very opiniated poll question?  I guess it's clear who Age is rooting for :-P

[gtsully]

Rich H '96 wrote:
I'm actually thinking of trying to keep count of the number of time the word "curse" is uttered, or Babe Ruth is referenced during the broadcasts.

You'd lose count by the end of the pre-game show before game 1.  I mean, if you can actually do it, more power to you, because I'd like to see just how badly it is beaten into the ground, but I just don't see how it's possible.  It would only get worse if the Yanks take an early series lead or if somehow the Sox advanced to play the Cubs.  But at that point, the world would end, so it doesn't really matter. ::nut::

Either way, this series should be fun, and although it would give me an ulcer and/or a heart attack, I'm kinda hoping it goes seven.

[RichS]

The Red Sox have only themselves to blame for the continuance of the curse nonsense.  All they had to do was win...just once since 1918!  And you Sox fans are stuck with it...and them...though I do admire your loyalty.    Hey, I'm a Clarkson grad, I know how it feels!  :-D

So it's Buckner's fault!!

[Jordan 04]

Speaking of Buckner, how freaky was that foul trickler at the end of the game last night.  Curse or not, that was verrrrry creepy.

"Little roller up along first....BEHIND THE BAG!  It gets through Buckner.  Here comes Knight, and the Mets win it!!" :-)

[ugarte]

Rich H '96 wrote:

I agree with Keith.  When you don't want flyballs, Lowe's the right choice.  And a tired sinkerball pitcher is generally an effective sinkerball pitcher, anyway.

I do hate to 2nd guess Ken Macha, but Zito was tiring in the 6th, and it was obvious before ManRam's HR.  And Melhuse for Dye can be overlooked because of Melhuse's success in the series, even though I didn't agree with the move.  Long struck out on the exact same pitch the previous batter did...he should've known it was coming.  Then again, I'm not in the batter's box.

I also agree with the decision to pitch Lowe.  Little certainly wasn't going to Kim.  And I agree that Zito was obviously spent.  I was really hoping that he wouldn't try to sneak another "fast"ball past Ramirez.

I agreed with Melhuse over Dye.  Good platoon matchup, not to mention Melhuse's success in game 4.  And I don't know what you do with a backup slider like that even if you know it's coming.  Melhuse and Long both started bailing out, only to have the ball break back over the plate (if a bit high) for strike three.

The A's bigger problem was stupid baserunning.  Why did Guillen go to third?  Why did Dye try to go to second on the "collision" (you just know he wasn't running hard out of the box)?  This happened to the A's throughout the series.

And the umpiring was horrible.  I understand that the umps got the "rule" right on both the Mueller and Tejada interferences, but their judgment was wrong both times.  And no matter how many announcers talk about "blocking the plate" as a skill, it is illegal when you don't have the ball.  Byrnes should have been called safe on the obstruction.

All these errors make it difficult to call this series a classic.  But not impossible.  It was a riveting series, and a classic.  Go Yankees.

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

[q]I'm actually thinking of trying to keep count of the number of time the word "curse" is uttered, or Babe Ruth is referenced during the broadcasts.[/q]

Sounds like a new drinking game to me.  :-P

JH

[dsr11]

[Q]And no matter how many announcers talk about "blocking the plate" as a skill, it is illegal when you don't have the ball. Byrnes should have been called safe on the obstruction.[/Q]

It's not illegal if you going for the ball.  Since the throw was up the 3rd base line, Varitek had every right to block the plate in an attempt to field the throw.  Great play by Varitek.  Beside, Byrnes should have been called out for pushing Varitek when Varitek went to chase the ball down.  Talk about interference, you can't push a guy just because you feel like it.

[me]

Tejada needs to know the rules of baseball - he's not automatically awarded the next base if he's obstructed with.  Obstruction isn't always a dead ball (although interference is, except for "catcher's interference").  If, in the ump's judgment, he would have advanced without the obstruction, then he's given the base.  If he had kept running, there wouldn't have been an argument - the ump even admitted this after the game.  He was going to give him the base, but he stopped running and therefore you couldn't tell that he was going to score.  Because Tejada stopped running - assuming that it was a dead ball and he was going to be awarded the base - it wasn't clear that he was going to score.  Macha even admitted that it was Tejada's fault.  FWIW, the Commish and Supervisor of Umps said that it was the correct call too.

It's correct to say that it's illegal to block the plate if you don't have the ball.  But look at the entire rule - "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand."  If the catcher is in the act of fielding the ball, they have every right to the plate that the runner has.  

It was also correct to award Varitek home plate for that other obstruction call.  He had already legally advanced to third, so any obstruction call after that awards him the next base - in this case, home.

There were actually three obstruction/interference calls in that game - they didn't call Byrnes for shoving Varitek after the collision at the plate.  That should have been called interference - Byrnes would have been called out and it's a dead ball.

Classic?  I don't know - maybe if you're a Sox fan.  Dramatic - definitely.  Another vote of confidence for the Wild Card system - absolutely, but now let's make it a 7 game series.

[ugarte]

me wrote:
 If he had kept running, there wouldn't have been an argument - the ump even admitted this after the game.  [/q]Agreed, to a point. If you want to blame Tejada (and Tejada certainly deserves some blame), fine. But I still think the judgment was the wrong one and he should have been awarded the plate (unless stopping was itself the crime - a tough interpretation).

[q]It's correct to say that it's illegal to block the plate if you don't have the ball.  But look at the entire rule - "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand."  If the catcher is in the act of fielding the ball, they have every right to the plate that the runner has.  [/q]  In this case "fielding the ball" refers to fielding a bunt down the line, not waiting for a throw. Until the catcher has the ball, setting up a barrier in front of the plate while waiting for the throw -- explicitly and solely to obstruct the runner -- is illegal.

[q]It was also correct to award Varitek home plate for that other obstruction call.  He had already legally advanced to third, so any obstruction call after that awards him the next base - in this case, home.[/q]  I agree with your interpretation of the rule, I just don't think it was obstruction in the first place.  Chavez was making a play on the ball - he reached up to catch it and missed, and the guy backing up the play caught it.

[q]There were actually three obstruction/interference calls in that game - they didn't call Byrnes for shoving Varitek after the collision at the plate.  That should have been called interference - Byrnes would have been called out and it's a dead ball.[/q] I don't buy this at all.  At the time of the shove, Byrnes should already have been awarded home plate.  Byrnes was hopping around after being tripped by Varitek, and Varitek ran into Byrnes.  As much as everyone (especially the broadcast crew) seems to think Byrnes shoved Varitek in anger over the collision at the plate, I think it was because Varitek ran into him as he was hobbling around.  Varitek didn't even visibly diverge from his path to the ball from the "shove" from Byrnes.

[ugarte]

Dan '01 wrote:

[Q]And no matter how many announcers talk about "blocking the plate" as a skill, it is illegal when you don't have the ball. Byrnes should have been called safe on the obstruction.[/Q]

It's not illegal if you going for the ball.  Since the throw was up the 3rd base line, Varitek had every right to block the plate in an attempt to field the throw.  Great play by Varitek.  Beside, Byrnes should have been called out for pushing Varitek when Varitek went to chase the ball down.  Talk about interference, you can't push a guy just because you feel like it.

I addressed this in the response to "me".  Wrong, and wrong.

[rhovorka]

me wrote:

Tejada needs to know the rules of baseball - he's not automatically awarded the next base if he's obstructed with.  Obstruction isn't always a dead ball (although interference is, except for "catcher's interference").  If, in the ump's judgment, he would have advanced without the obstruction, then he's given the base.  If he had kept running, there wouldn't have been an argument - the ump even admitted this after the game.  

While it is Tejada's fault, I doubt even a handful of MLB players knew the exact wording of that rule.  Obstruction rarely happens normally.  Having already seen it called once in the game, when the play was called dead, and the Sox runner was awarded home, it's easy to see how Tejada could make that mistake.  Also, Tejada saw the ump mistakenly raise both hands in making the call, which usually means "the play is dead."  Why risk an injury in a home-plate collision if he thought the play was dead?

The wording of the rule is vague at best, and it allowed the umps a loophole to get out of a potential sticky situation.  It sure looks like a hypocrisy when you watch the 2 plays: Varitek was automatically given home when he was trying to get back to *third* base in a rundown (dead ball called), and Tejada was ruled out on a play where he would've scored easily had he not been tackled while rounding 3rd (no dead ball).  By the rule, the explanation is passible, but Steve Palermo actually did some pretty hefty back-tracking after talking on the phone with Selig.  MLB will twist the rules as much as they can to avoid looking like their representatives are to blame for any contraversy.

[Q]There were actually three obstruction/interference calls in that game - they didn't call Byrnes for shoving Varitek after the collision at the plate.  That should have been called interference - Byrnes would have been called out and it's a dead ball.[/Q]

Well, Byrnes was out anyway, so the point is moot.  In reading the post-game quotes, Byrnes said that he didn't realize that Varitek dropped the ball.  He thought he was out, which explains his failure to go back and touch the plate.  I fault the on-deck hitter for not doing more to get Byrnes to wake up.

People can scream all they want about the obstruction calls, but the bottom line is that in the end, the Sox had more timely hitting than the A's did (both teams hit about .212 in the series, and the Sox OBP was only .290...2nd worst in the first round) and got the job done.

[Al DeFlorio]

big red apple wrote:

Dan '01 wrote:

[Q] Wrong, and wrong.

I'm afraid those words apply to your argument.  Sorry.  The umps were dead right.  And the A's are just dead.

[ugarte]

Al DeFlorio wrote:

big red apple wrote:

Wrong, and wrong.

I'm afraid those words apply to your argument.  Sorry.  The umps were dead right.  And the A's are just dead.

The only way you can come to this conclusion is to say that the umpires' failure to enforce this rule as written during the regular season acts as a precedent (which is fair, but infuriating).  The rule as written just doesn't permit the catcher to block the plate without the ball - even if it is on the way.  Varitek didn't even block the plate "in an attempt to field the throw".  He blocked the plate with his left leg as he leaned into the infield to catch a throw going toward the first base line.  What Varitek did is dangerous and the correct interpretation of the rule should be clarified and enforced properly.

Over the last few days I've come to grips with the fact that (1) everyone misinterprets the rule because they are used to catchers getting lauded for blocking the plate; and (2) practice trumps the written rule because nobody bothers to rewrite the rules when they become outdated (like the strike zone).  But don't tell me that the rule was interpreted as written.



Post Edited (10-07-03 17:30)

[Keith K \'93]

The relevant rule for obstruction calls is 7.06.  It's too long to include, so I'll just link to it: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

When Varitek was interfered with by Chavez, it occurred when a play was being made on the runner interfered with.  Therefore the play is ruled dead and the obstructed runner is awarded at least one base past the last he legally touched before obstruction.  Thus varitek has to be awarded home. 7.06 (a)

When Tejada was interfered with, a play was not being made on him so the situation is governed by 7.06 (b).  In this case, the umpire indicates that obstruction has occurred, play proceeds as normal until time is called.  Then the umpire awards any bases he feels would have been awarded without the obstruction.  This is specifically a judgement call.  The rule notes that if a runner advances beyond a base which the umpire determines he would have been "awarded" without obstruction then he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out.  Thus Tejada is out when tagged unless the umpire was sure he would have scored without obstruction.  I don't think this was certain given how shallow left field is in Boston and where Tejada was when Ramirez picked up the ball.

In both cases it's pretty clear from a reading of the rules that the umpires got the call right according to the rules, except that one can argue whether tejada would have scored without obstruction.

As for Varitek blocking the plate, rule 7.06 also covers this: [Q]The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. [/Q]  Now, one could argue that Varitek was attempting to field the ball when Byrnes arrived and therefore had a right to be there - he was reaching for the throw.  But he clearly did not need to have his leg there to field the ball, so he was obviously violating the principle that "the base line belongs to the runner".  As BRA says, this is simply a case of baseball practice over-riding the rules.  Note that it's not just catchers - fielders routinely use their leg to block 2nd and 3rd when a runner comes in head first.