World Series notebook: Opinions abound on obstruction ruling
ST. LOUIS — By Sunday morning, most everyone had become an expert on the obstruction rule.
“Worst ending to a World Series game ever!” PGA golfer Hunter Mahan tweeted.
“Obstruction of justice,” Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely wrote.
No matter that the Official Baseball Rules have a slightly different take on what happened between the Cardinals and Red Sox in Game 3 at Busch Stadium.
But anytime someone scores the winning run with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning without even touching home plate — called safe on an extremely rare ruling by an umpire — it's bound to cause a little ruckus.
On this point, all sides seemed to agree: Allen Craig's wild trip over Boston third baseman Will Middlebrooks likely made for the most crazy, chaotic October finish of all-time.
“As a baseball fan, you hate to see a game end like that,” pitcher Adam Wainwright said Sunday before Game 4. “Obviously, I'm on the Cardinals, so I'm fortunate the rule is the way it is. And you hate to say it, but he impeded the process of running home.”
“But I totally understand why Red Sox players would be upset about that. That is just a horrible way to lose a baseball game, no question about it,” he said.
Bad back shelves Boston's Victorino
Red Sox right fielder Shane Victorino did not start in Game 4 because of lower-back tightness.
Victorino was batting second in the batting order but was scratched about 75 minutes before the scheduled first pitch.
Daniel Nava was moved from left field to right and from fifth to second in the batting order.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.