OT: World Series Game 3 ends with controversial call

Submitted by rob f on

Seeming to have been lost in the shuffle of a long sports day dominated by College Football (with a sprinkling of Michigan Soccer and Michigan hockey mixed in), World Series Game 3 was played Saturday night.

I admittedly paid very little attention to it, somewhat due to being burned out on baseball due to yet another disappointing end to the season for the Tigers.  I only checked the score from time-to-time, finally tuning in during the 8th inning as the Red Sox tied it up with a 2-run rally 4-4, then paying close attention in the 9th.

What unfolded then is something I have never seen in any  MLB game, let alone a Post Season game: a walk-off obstruction call:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpT7-9evb1Y

(hoping it embeds properly)

In a nutshell, for those who haven't seen it:  Cards, with one down in the bottom of the 9th, got a single by Molina.  Boston went to their closer, Koji Uehara, who immediately gave up a 1st pitch double to the next hitter.  Runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, the Red Sox strangely chose to pitch to the next hitter rather than load up the bases via intentional walk to set up the force.

It looked, momentarily, like the move worked, as the next hitter, on a 1-strike pitch, grounded to 2nd to a pulled-in infield, Pedroia making a diving stop and springing to his feet, easily throwing out Molina at home.  Boston's catcher Saltalamaccia then fired off-line to the right side of 3rd, the ball bouncing off 3rd baseman Middlebrooks glove to the wall behind 3rd base (where it juts out), the ball then bouncing directly to the Red Sox left fielder, who fires home for what appears to be the double play.

Problem is, Sox 3B Middlebrooks got tangled with the runner, who in his clumsiness, tripped over Middlebrooks legs before trying to score.  Thrown out by a couple feet, but Jim Joyce (remember him?) immediately (and correctly, IMO) called "obstruction of the baserunner", which meant the runner advances, scoring the winning run.

What a weird finish...

Rabbit21

October 27th, 2013 at 10:42 AM ^

"Delicious to beat down", mild example to be sure, but remember that most people were pulling for the Red Sox a few years ago until they won a World Series and as entire fan base became immediately insufferable. So anything is likely to be taken as a Boston fan being obnoxious, because y'all earned it.

Suck it Trebek

October 27th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^

Saying "beat down" is arrogant in of itself. The series was very tight. The Tigers starting pitching was for the most part dominant (remember when they could barely muster a hit over 2 games?). Boston proved to have a better bullpen and got some clutch hits late. But the series could have easily been Tigers in 5. But that's baseball for you. To imply that Boston dominated Detroit is ridiculous.

randyfloyd

October 27th, 2013 at 10:10 AM ^

I love all UM sports but I pretty much dislike all of the Detroit teams. I love this blog though, so I just give my little F the lions, tigers and red wings comments in the posts. I am very appreciative of the Detroit bloggers on this blog tolerating my anti-Detroit teams stance. However there are teams that do make me root for Detroit teams (when they play them), so they are not my most hated pro teams.

bronxblue

October 27th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^

Nobody really "hates" the Red Sox as much as they hate the incredibly corporate, ESPN-approved narrative that surrounds them as a plucky band of guys who play the game "the right way" despite all evidence that they have a massive payroll, a history of players who abuse substances like every other team, and a significant part of the fanbase that thinks baseball started in 2004.  And to be fair, the 2006 Tigers ushered in a fair number of those fans in the area as well, and I'd argue that Cards fans are just insuferable.  But Boston holds a special place in the overwrought zeitgeist.

DetroitBlue

October 27th, 2013 at 9:34 AM ^

Looks like the right call was made. Whether or not he tried to impede him, and whether or not the base runner could've gotten around him, the third baseman was directly in his path and impeded his ability to get home. Without him being in the way, the base runner scores easily.

Greg McMurtry

October 27th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^

You don't try to get up by putting your feet in the air, you put your feet on the ground. Also, that looked like some of the slowest running I've ever seen from both base runners.

bronxblue

October 27th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^

It was the right call, because the rulebook says nothing about intent and it was clear that he would have scored standing up without being tripped.  The baserunner has a right to that basepath, and a player on the ground in front of him is an obstruction.  I'm sure they'll look deeper into the rule this winter and see if it needs t be tweaked, but I think Joyce made the right call.

Swazi

October 27th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^

Wasn't controversial. Was the right call. Rod Sox player looks to be intentionally trying to trip him up. Sucks for them since they just made a play at home against Molina.

Cold War

October 27th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^

Got tangled? Clumsy runner? Totally mischaracterized by the OP. The thrid baseman clearly raises his feet to obstruct the runner.

rob f

October 27th, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^

and watch it again---the baserunner didn't get tripped up by the raised legs when Middlebrooks initially raised his legs. He did, however, get "tangled up" with Middlebrooks as he attempted to step over him while simultaneously Middlebrooks continued to move while lying prone on the ground. Clumsy? Yes. Probably somewhat due to having just come back very recently from some sort of foot or leg injury. As opposed to describing him as "graceful", I would lean more towards the description of "clumsiness ". As one who has literally tripped over his own feet, I KNOW clumsiness! Yes,obstruction absolutely occurred and the call was correct. Controversial? Depends on your definition. To Boston fans who set the standard for whining, definitely controversial.

Blue-in-the-Lou

October 27th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^

Very interesting play. I think the call was clearly right, as most have said, and I think it was mostly Saltalamacchia's fault (I think his play has been shaky at best in the WS, starkly contrasted with Molina, who is a rock behind the plate). No one has commented, though, about Molina's timid slide home. He didn't even get to the base and barely made any contact with the catcher. The right play for him in this instance is to absolutely truck Salty so he can't make the throw in the first place. The Cards were lucky how things worked out, but not knowing the outcome beforehand, Molina should have blasted him. Wonder if he didn't do it because he's also a catcher...

rob f

October 27th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^

That bouncer wide of Pedroia gets by a lot of other 2nd basemen . Even then, you still have another runner in scoring position, so go on the crack of the bat with anything hit on the ground to the right side of the infield , be aggressive and put the pressure on the defense to make the play.

cm2010

October 27th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^

It was the right move. As stated above, you want to put pressure on the defense to make a play. If Saltalamacchia would have held on to the ball like he should have, you would've had runners on first and third with two outs. Jay would then have likely taken second base on defensive indifference since his run didn't matter, and you're left with the same situation as if Molina had stayed put. Plus, you get Molina off the bases.

With Kozma on deck, the Cards really needed to win it there because there's no way Kozma comes through against Uehara.

Princetonwolverine

October 27th, 2013 at 2:21 PM ^

Pedroia was playing in for a play at the plate. IF it had gotten by him Molina could have walked in. He was thrown out by a mile. There was only one out.

cm2010

October 27th, 2013 at 6:29 PM ^

You shouldn't be allowed to prevent the winning run from scoring by tripping him (intentionally or not). If Craig is called out in spite of the obstruction, that would be total BS. It's not the umpires' or rule makers' fault it ended this way, it's Saltalamacchia's fault.

EDIT: Full disclosure: I am a totally biased Cards' fan.

JamieH

October 28th, 2013 at 12:57 AM ^

one way or the other, either by calling it or by NOT calling it.   Not calling it would have been worse IMO.  It's like pass interference.  Just because a ref decides NOT to call it doesn't mean that he isn't "deciding" the game.