Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 That was a real dumb move. First, and most importantly, if he just shuts up and scores, its 2-1 and the As, most likely, win in nine. There are no extra innings and no Boston walkoff. Just an As sweep. Second, just watch the play. Why did the As even bother arguing? Look how s***ty that throw was. It was about ten feet fromt the plate and probably eight feet up. Either way, it was s***ty. Tejada woulda scored easily. But instead, he slowed and then STOPPED, f***in stopped, just to point at the thirdbaseman and whine obstruction. He should have just kept chugging it and tried to score, then if he was called out he coulda argued obstruction. The umps wont give you s*** if you quit in the middle of the play like that, and I dont blame em. If the As choke and lose the last two and the series like they did to the Yanks a few years back, Tejada oughta to be the goat. The As should be celebrating with champagne in some ritzy hotel right now but instead they have to prepare for game 4... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 I agree. Tejada was being real stupid to not just take home plate, when he easily had it. He and Eric Byrnes blew this game big time. Byrned I can give a little leway(sp?) too because he was hurt, but he still should have taken home plate because the ump didn't make a call, instead of pushing Varitek in blind rage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 I agree. Tejada was being real stupid to not just take home plate, when he easily had it. He and Eric Byrnes blew this game big time. Byrned I can give a little leway(sp?) too because he was hurt, but he still should have taken home plate because the ump didn't make a call, instead of pushing Varitek in blind rage. Wait, explain what happened? I was only half assedly watching the game so I missed that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Tejada should have kept running, you're both right, but that is a TERRIBLE call by the umping crew. It's going to be a bang-bang play at the plate, and it should not matter whether Tejada is safe or not. The judgment call there is that he could be safe OR out. Stopping and whining didn't help, but the fact that Boston got an obstruction call like that earlier in a less obvious incident is just terrible. Anyone remember game 2 or 5 of the Twins-A's ALDS last year where Tejada flipped the ball to Ellis, Ellis caught it, and in the exchange from glove to hand, dropped it? The runner at 2nd was out and was not given 2B because Ellis dropped the ball. Later in that same game, Rivas and Guzman were turning a DP. Rivas flipped to Guzman, Guzman just flat out dropped the ball, but because that same lost-in-exchange call was made earlier in the game, the umps HAD to call it the same for both teams, because that's the way it appeared for both teams. That should have happened here, but did not. I don't think it matters though....I think Hudson will come out, pitch decently, Burkett will get drilled for about 3 or 4, and the A's bullpen will beat the Red Sox bullpen, and the A's win 5-3 and move on to the ALCS where they'll rekindle their rivalry with the Yankees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Wait, explain what happened? I was only half assedly watching the game so I missed that... *Puts on thinking cap*... Byrnes hit a leadoff double. The next guy moved him over to 3rd. The next hit was a swinging bunt, and Byrnes went for home. Varitek blocked ANY part of Byrnes' body from touching home plate, even though 'Tek dropped the ball. Byrnes fell somewhere behind home plate, and 'Tek got up to go get the ball, and Byrnes stood up in front of him and pushed him as hard as he could, the funny thing was that when he pushed him, 'Tek only moved like a few inches to the left and kept all balance. So Byrnes is just standing there and starts walking off, 'Tek grabs the ball and tags him, Byrnes never touched home plate, and was out. If he would have, after being tripped, gone for home plate, it would have been 2-1 A's (Or that might have been the tying run, I'm not sure.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 If he had kept running and slid into the plate, then if he was called out he should have argued instruction. But he nearly stopped. Thats the thing. The umps should be fair, I agree, but Tejada shoulda kept on going. Why the f*** did he argue? Did you see that throw? It was the s***tiest throw Ive ever seen. Theres no chance he woulda been out so stopping and pointing fingers was just pointless. And I agree again. Oakland will win this series easily and Tejada will have nothing to worry about. But it was still a stupid mistake... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 *Puts on thinking cap*... Byrnes hit a leadoff double. The next guy moved him over to 3rd. The next hit was a swinging bunt, and Byrnes went for home. Varitek blocked ANY part of Byrnes' body from touching home plate, even though 'Tek dropped the ball. Byrnes fell somewhere behind home plate, and 'Tek got up to go get the ball, and Byrnes stood up in front of him and pushed him as hard as he could, the funny thing was that when he pushed him, 'Tek only moved like a few inches to the left and kept all balance. So Byrnes is just standing there and starts walking off, 'Tek grabs the ball and tags him, Byrnes never touched home plate, and was out. If he would have, after being tripped, gone for home plate, it would have been 2-1 A's (Or that might have been the tying run, I'm not sure.) Well that was dumb. And if youre gonna push him, put him on his ass! Dont be so weak and move him all of an inch. Come to think of it, I heard something during the Cubs highlights but I again wasnt paying attention. One of the guys talked about some falt out dirty play and said the offending player shouldnt play anymore in the series/playoffs. Any idea what he was talkin about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 *Puts on thinking cap*... Byrnes hit a leadoff double. The next guy moved him over to 3rd. The next hit was a swinging bunt, and Byrnes went for home. Varitek blocked ANY part of Byrnes' body from touching home plate, even though 'Tek dropped the ball. Byrnes fell somewhere behind home plate, and 'Tek got up to go get the ball, and Byrnes stood up in front of him and pushed him as hard as he could, the funny thing was that when he pushed him, 'Tek only moved like a few inches to the left and kept all balance. So Byrnes is just standing there and starts walking off, 'Tek grabs the ball and tags him, Byrnes never touched home plate, and was out. If he would have, after being tripped, gone for home plate, it would have been 2-1 A's (Or that might have been the tying run, I'm not sure.) Well that was dumb. And if youre gonna push him, put him on his ass! Dont be so weak and move him all of an inch. Come to think of it, I heard something during the Cubs highlights but I again wasnt paying attention. One of the guys talked about some falt out dirty play and said the offending player shouldnt play anymore in the series/playoffs. Any idea what he was talkin about? Talkin' about the scrappy Byrnes, who gets mad easily. The catcher was doing his job, he prevented the runner from even TOUCHING home plate. That was a sweet play by Varitek. Instead of shoving him, he should have given him props. It was a s***ty dive/slide into home for Byrnes though, he could have gotten a much better slide down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 Ugh, I just saw the play, And Byrnes is a f***in moron. This kids not gonna last long. s***, he coulda gotten to 1B safely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Ugh, I just saw the play, And Byrnes is a f***in moron. This kids not gonna last long. s***, he coulda gotten to 1B safely... Byrnes has the talent, but it seems he just needs to control himself. I dunno if Beane'll drop him, but I know other teams would gladly take him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 He does have talent but he cant be doing punk ass s*** like that. Especially when he should be busy scoring in the playoffs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 He does have talent but he cant be doing punk ass s*** like that. Especially when he should be busy scoring in the playoffs... Exactly. Same with Tejada. I'm not sure I want him on our team anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 If he had kept running and slid into the plate, then if he was called out he should have argued instruction. The point is, the 3B umpire had already called the obstruction and Tejada knew it. Should he have stopped running? Obviously not based on the end result. But unless I missed something (and I don't think I did) the call was indeed incorrect. The defense erred, the umpire acknowledged the obstruction and the throw was high and wide. The runner should be given any benefit of the doubt in that situation. The argument that 3B was all he was entitled to and he was advancing at his own risk, doesn't wash because the obstruction occurred right at 3b. If the obstruction occured with the SS after he rounded 2B, and he was thrown out at home because he kept going, then it would make sense. But it was very clear that the obstruction did not occur in advance of 3B. So in reality, if the umpires did their job correctly, it would not have mattered if Tejada stopped. FWIW, I umpired for 9 years, so you will rarely hear me criticize them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 From what I saw, Tejada kept going for a while then saw the throw beat him. Once he saw that Varitek was gonna get the ball, he turned around to protest the non-call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 The number one rule for any ballplayer is let the umpire be the umpire. In other word's you bust ass and finish the play, then see what the umpire calls. What Tejada did, by stopping, was asinine. As for the "dirty" play in the Cubs-Braves game. Fick bunted and as he approached 1st, he chopped Karros in the forearm, knocking the ball and glove away. He was called out, but that was typical of that dickhead. He always was first class jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 The umpire was correct in the literal definition of the obstruction rule, because the rule gives the umpire the leeway to stop a play or not. He did not stop the play and Tejada stopped running anyway. At that point, it becomes the ump's discretion as to whether or not Tejada would have scored without the obstruction. Once Tejada stopped running, he took away any chance for the ump to determine that he would have scored without being obstructed. The only thing the ump could have judged ( and this is what MY call would have been ) is that the awful Ramirez throw would not have gotten Tejada at the plate, and Tejada would not have stopped running without the obstruction call, so he would have been safe and I would have ruled him safe at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 The umpire was correct in the literal definition of the obstruction rule, because the rule gives the umpire the leeway to stop a play or not. He did not stop the play and Tejada stopped running anyway. At that point, it becomes the ump's discretion as to whether or not Tejada would have scored without the obstruction. Once Tejada stopped running, he took away any chance for the ump to determine that he would have scored without being obstructed. The only thing the ump could have judged ( and this is what MY call would have been ) is that the awful Ramirez throw would not have gotten Tejada at the plate, and Tejada would not have stopped running without the obstruction call, so he would have been safe and I would have ruled him safe at home. That was my point...... In that situation, you give the benefit of the doubt to the runner. The umpire had already acknowledged the obstruction before Tejada stopped. I don't think Tejada stopping should have had ANYTHING to do with the judgement of the umpires on whether he would have scored or not. He stopped AFTER the umpire3 signaled the obstruction. The umpire was correct in the literal definition of the obstruction rule, because the rule gives the umpire the leeway to stop a play or not. The bottom line is that the defense was in the wrong, yet got awarded in this situation, which is ridiculous. There was never a question of whether should be stopped because there were other runners. The umpires handled the play correctly except for the ruling that Tejada was out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 Exactly. Same with Tejada. I'm not sure I want him on our team anymore. I was thinking that last nite too. If hes gonna do s*** like that Im not sure I want him here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 The point is, the 3B umpire had already called the obstruction and Tejada knew it. Should he have stopped running? Obviously not based on the end result. But unless I missed something (and I don't think I did) the call was indeed incorrect. The defense erred, the umpire acknowledged the obstruction and the throw was high and wide. The runner should be given any benefit of the doubt in that situation. The argument that 3B was all he was entitled to and he was advancing at his own risk, doesn't wash because the obstruction occurred right at 3b. If the obstruction occured with the SS after he rounded 2B, and he was thrown out at home because he kept going, then it would make sense. But it was very clear that the obstruction did not occur in advance of 3B. So in reality, if the umpires did their job correctly, it would not have mattered if Tejada stopped. FWIW, I umpired for 9 years, so you will rarely hear me criticize them. Well Rex, since you umped for nine years, Im not going to argue with you about what the umps did. But look at it this way. Tejada woulda scored easily. The throw was s***ty and was only 45 feet away about. And then he stopped. The right thing to do would have been to shut up and score. Theres no way the umps can deny a legitimate run. But if you were out and the umps called it so, then you jump up and argue the obstruction. But Tejada shoulda just assumed there was no obstruction, finished the play, and then if need be point out the obstruction. As yas mentioned, the number one rule for a player is let the ump be the ump. Bust your ass and then argue when the plays finished... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 From what I saw, Tejada kept going for a while then saw the throw beat him. Once he saw that Varitek was gonna get the ball, he turned around to protest the non-call. I disagree. I think Tejada would have scored easily if he had kept going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 The number one rule for any ballplayer is let the umpire be the umpire. In other word's you bust ass and finish the play, then see what the umpire calls. What Tejada did, by stopping, was asinine. As for the "dirty" play in the Cubs-Braves game. Fick bunted and as he approached 1st, he chopped Karros in the forearm, knocking the ball and glove away. He was called out, but that was typical of that dickhead. He always was first class jerk. That was such BS. I'd of suspended his ass for a play like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 That was pretty stupid of Fick too. And what else has he done to be a jerk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 And as for the Byrnes play, Byrnes wasnt even close to the plate. It wasnt as if his hand glided two inches over the plate. The closest any part of his body was to the plate was about two feet. And he had plenty of time too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 The number one rule for any ballplayer is let the umpire be the umpire. In other word's you bust ass and finish the play, then see what the umpire calls. What Tejada did, by stopping, was asinine. As for the "dirty" play in the Cubs-Braves game. Fick bunted and as he approached 1st, he chopped Karros in the forearm, knocking the ball and glove away. He was called out, but that was typical of that dickhead. He always was first class jerk. That was such BS. I'd of suspended his ass for a play like that. I disagree Jason..... obviously in retrospect Tejada should have kept running. But when you collide with a player and you hear the umpire right next to you yell "That's obstruction" and see him signal by holding out his arm, you have every right in that situation to do what Tejada did. Obviously he could have kept going and the point would have been moot, but he and Oakland were definitely wronged. I have tried to think of every conceivable interpretation of the rule and after seeing that play, can find none that justify that call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.