2013 MLB Thread -- Return of the boys of Summer!

It hurts for the Red Sox, not only the loss, but that was a pretty good play the second baseman made. To have the catcher and whoever was backing up third spray the ball around like that, and of course the obstruction, takes away from that highlight.

In the end, I'm confident the right call was made. Although several commenters on MLB.com have taken Craig's lurch away from third to be tantamount to retreating towards second, so that he should have touched third again before proceeding home.

If the throw to third had been caught; if Craig had been at full power; if we had had a pinch runner to sub for him; if the catcher hadn't thrown the ball that far off-bag; if Craig and the third baseman hadn't both been on the same side of the line; if the third baseman had caught the ball rather than sticking to the bag; maybe if the ball had gone straight past third and gotten to the next fielder sooner; maybe if Craig hadn't hesitated on the way to third; maybe if the following throw home had been sooner, stronger, and more on-target . . . this might not have happened. Basically this was a play where everything had to be just so in order for things to happen the way they did.

And if everything else happens the way it did happen, without the obstruction, I think Craig scores.

As for class, well, Molina gave up rather than try to bowl through his fellow catcher. Honor among catchers!

I know what the rule is, but it still seems like a CHEAP way to end a game. I don;t think Craig would have scored, he was out by a MILE, and he would have been a second faster. I think they need to change that rule.

Yeah, I don't think Craig would have scored either, but at this point we are subjectively interpreting the same data the umps had. This isn't the same as the incident at second base in game one, when the ump didn't see what had happened.

If you change the rule then fielders will be able to game the rule. Far better to have a clear-cut rule that doesn't allow players to cheat. Lets not bring players taking a dive into baseball from basketball and soccer.

In any event the rule was entirely fair in this case. Salty made a ridiculous throw he never should have, and Middlebrooks should have simply fielded the throw rather than trying to make a tag he had no chance of making.

Not sure, but I loved that they picked him off after Tim McCarver's bitchin about how Napoli shouldn't hold him on the bag.

Baserunning - he was doing it Wong...

MLB is NOW meeting to CHANGE the rule, how fair is it to knock someone over then complain he obstructed you. I bet they change the rule next year,

Actually, Joe Torre said the rule would be discussed in the off-season, so they're not "NOW meeting to CHANGE the rule". Your hatred of the Cardinals is blinding you....

Also, I don't necessarily agree that Craig knocked Middlebrooks over. I've watched the replay several times just now--SI.com has a good one with multiple angles and super-slow-motion (http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/27/world-series-game-3-obstruction-video-cardinals-red-sox/?sct=mlb_t1t_a3)...and it's just too hard to tell. Craig arrives at the bag precisely as Middlebrooks is diving to try to catch the crappy throw from Saltalmacchia. So Middlebrooks is already leaning significantly, and it's hard to tell if he lost his footing on purpose (diving), due to necessity ('cause he knows Craig is coming in hard), or because he actually got run into.

I wouldn't put the odds at more than 50/50 on the rule being changed. If you want to throw a requirement for intent into it, that doesn't clarify anything, but muddies the issue even more, because it calls for the Umpire to now guess what the fielder is thinking. And it still wouldn't clarify that play. Middlebrooks raised his legs as Craig tried to get up and run. It's obvious on any replay. Was he doing so to slow down Craig, or just trying to get himself up? How would an umpire even BEGIN to know??? IMO, a cut & dried rule is best.

About the only change I'd support would be one that grants the umpire discretion over awarding the base. Does he think the runner would have advanced were it not for the interference? If yes, award the base, if no, then the interference didn't matter. But divining intent is next to impossible. That's problematic enough on hit batsmen.

TWO in a row... Back to Fenway...

ITS ALL OVER! RED SOX WIN THE SERIES!!!

The Red Sox were almost a CENTURY overdue to win a World Series in FENWAY! I'm happy for Beantown & all of nuEngland tonight.

A friend of mine got the main front page photo in the Globe.