Twins 6, Astros 2: Pablo Lopez Provides Ace-Level Performance, October Correa Leads Offense and Defense

[jkcarew]

I’m pretty sure we’ll see the best version of the Houston Astros in at least one of these two games at home. They’ve been phenomenal on the road all season. Doesn’t mean the Twins can’t beat them, though.

I doubt the Twins fear Verlander as much as we do. It will be tough for him to duplicate Game 1’s performance regardless of when or if we see him again. Just play the game boys!

[mnfireman]

Very good arguments and astute insights into personal opinions of the obstruction rule. However, I still feel had Rocco challenged, or even went out to just talk to the umpire about the Lewis call, that it may have led to the umpire crew being more aware (much like Maldonado complaining about his pitchers not getting high strikes) and perhaps led to a call for Correa. Perhaps not. The team still won, but sometimes just putting a bug in the umps ear, or making them aware you are willing to challenge, can do big things. We will see going forward. 

[jkcarew]

The only downside I see right now…

me, having to go out and buy one of those god-awful “M” hats.

[dxpavelka]

5 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Sorry, I was using the usual call and not the rule. i have not read the rule recently but the umpire has a decision to make. It is a judgment call and contact is not required and even contact is not an automatic obstruction call. The usual call on that play would be obstruction if the runner comes into contact with a fielder without the ball or the umpire feels the runner change their course because a fielder was in the way. Like many rules, the umpire gets to make the call. It is a call, when made, that often brings about a vigorous exchange of verbal thoughts.

Weird part was that NOBODY questioned it.

 

[Dantes929]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

*obstruction 

 

Interference would be called on Lewis for interfering with a fielder

 

6 hours ago, jkcarew said:

It was a rundown play…the catcher has a right to be in the base path (as does the 3rd baseman)…and the catcher was where he was because he was expecting a return throw. The umpire is never going to call obstruction there unless the catcher goes out of his was to initiate some contact…which isn’t what happened.

"Obstruction describes an act by a fielder, who is not in possession of the ball or in the process of fielding it, that impedes the baserunner's progress."   That was the definition of obstruction from MLB.  USAChief was right that the call is obstruction rather than interference but the catcher was neither in possession of the ball nor was he in the process of fielding it since the third baseman ran down Lewis.    Essentially he was in the base path when he had no right to be  and would have impeded Lewis if Lewis ran directly toward home plate.   Go to the 50 second mark in link.  

 

[ashbury]

Really interesting play there, after about 27 viewings of the action. The fake throw by Bregman is the X factor.  Lewis has reason to think the catcher now has the ball. So he tries to go far enough around to avoid a sweep tag.  Did he go too far out?  In any case, this gives Bregman time to catch up - when the tag is applied, Lewis is on a crossing pattern back toward the plate while Bregman is going ever so slightly on more of a straight line.

The video of the rules explanation, above, states that intent is not a factor.  The catcher certainly had nowhere else to be - he was expecting the toss from Bregman as much as Lewis was.  Fake throws happen during rundowns all the time. Nevertheless, he's standing in the runner's path without the ball, not showing any inclination to get out of the way, and the runner tries to go around him needlessly.

Not an easy call to make. Shades of gray here IMO.

A better bunt makes this all moot though.

[Nine of twelve]

The still from the video shown above shows the ball left the thrower's hand before contact would have occurred between Lewis and the catcher. A fielder has the right to field the ball and since the throw was on its way to the catcher I doubt obstruction would have been called either on the field or upon review. Had Lewis initiated contact he might have been called for interference. So I think we simply accept the play as it was made by all involved, including the umpires.