Skip to content

Jake Peavy rips umpire Dana DeMuth, calls the game-ending play “a joke”

Oct 27, 2013, 9:03 AM EDT

source:

You mad, bro?

Yeah, Jake Peavy is definitely mad about the game-ending obstruction call last night. Speaking to reporters in the clubhouse after the game, the Red Sox’ Game 3 starter was incredulous, calling home plate umpire Dana DeMuth’s ruling that Allen Craig would have scored cleanly from third base but for the obstruction of third baseman Will Middlebrooks “a crying shame” and “a joke” and asked how DeMuth was going to sleep last night:

“Two teams are pouring their hearts out on the field and that’s the call you make … It’s a joke. I don’t know how he (DeMuth) is going to lay his head down tonight … it’s just amazing to me that it would end on a call like that, that’s not black and white. I don’t know what else to say …”

Peavy went on, trying to make this out as some sort of pattern of incompetence on the part of DeMuth and claimed that the only people who could possibly be happy with the call were Cardinals fans:

…He (DeMuth) has already proven that he can not see things correctly in Game 1. (He missed) a pretty obvious (call) 4 feet in front of him … I hope he rests well tonight in his hotel room knowing what he did. That is a joke, an absolute joke. I’m sorry. Go to talk to him and ask him if he feels good and right about his call to end a World Series game on a diving play… it’s just beyond me … I don’t know how anybody can say, ‘Yeah, that’s how it should have ended.’ Go find me one person that’s OK with that call, other than Cardinals fans, because they won the game.”

Sorry, but Peavy is the one who is a joke after these comments. Based on the sentiment of everyone I spoke with at the ballpark last night, everyone weighing in on the call online and on television and, more importantly, based on the clear reading of the applicable rules and reviewing the pay on video over and over, DeMuth did make the right call. He should have slept perfectly well last night.

What’s more — to use Peavy’s construction of the notion — the only people who I can find saying that no, the game should not have ended on that play — the only ones not OK with that call — are Red Sox fans because they lost the game.

Should they be 100% satisfied? No. It is hard to take a game ending on a play like that. But not because it was wrong or controversial, only because it doesn’t jibe with what we usually expect in terms of game flow. No clean RBI base hit. No pitcher retiring a batter. No one pumping their fist and going out for high fives. There’s a weird dissonant feeling when games don’t end the way they usually do and thus Red Sox fans having a bad taste in their mouths is totally understandable. But there was no miscarriage of justice here.

I’d ask Peavy to put the shoe on the other foot and ask how anyone besides Red Sox fans would feel if the call were made differently. If DeMuth ruled that Allen Craig was out even though he was interfered with by the fielder. To be sure, that is the call Peavy is disputing: the judgment that Craig would have scored but for the collision at third. That was DeMuth’s judgment call (third base umpire Jim Joyce called interference, and Peavy isn’t disputing that with these comments).

If that were the case it’d be close to intolerable. Both because it would clearly have been wrong — a gimpy Craig almost scored cleanly as it was — but because there would have been no way to fix the call to anyone’s satisfaction. Are Joe Torre and Bud Selig going to overturn it the next morning and retroactively award Game 3 to the Cardinals? Hardly. For P.R. purposes having a World Series game decided from a hotel suite in Downtown St. Louis at 2AM Sunday morning would have created an uproar and Selig would never have had the guts to do it, even if it would be the only way to truly fix the error. No, they would have stopped short of that and we’d be left with a clearly blown call standing and, possibly, deciding the outcome of a World Series.

It was less than satisfying aesthetically, but justice was done here. Dana DeMuth’s call was not a “joke.” And by the light of day this morning, I would expect that Jake Peavy — the emotion of the moment having passed — will realize that he was out of line with his comments last night.

  1. iman883 - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:10 AM

    DeMuth clearly hasn’t had his best series, but it’s hard to blame him when 1) it was the right call according to the rulebook and 2) Jim Joyce actually made the call.

    • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM

      Absolutely right and it gets right to the point of criticizing a guy for comments made just minutes after the game ended. I think a lot of people initially thought Demuth made the call, which is reasonable if you watch the video. Now that people have had time to process and understand what happened I think most reasonable people know the right call was made. It’s a tough rule that was interpreted correctly.

      I would like to hear what Peavy and other Sox players, with some time to reflect on it, have to say today about the call and the umpires today.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      2) Jim Joyce actually made the call.

      From what I’ve read, Joyce made the interference call; however, DeMuth made the determination on whether Craig should/would have scored or not. This doesn’t mean Peavy’s ire is attributed to the correct person though.

      • jeffbbf - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM

        Nah – once obstruction is called, the runner is given the next base (assuming he was going that way). All DeMuth was doing was calling the runner safe, acknowledging the obstruction call from Joyce.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        Again, I’m terrible with baseball rules, but are you sure? I didn’t see the Torre press conference:

      • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

        Yep, according to the rule, a runner is awarded at least one base if he is obstructed. The number of bases is at the umpires discretion, but there is not wording in there (that I have seen, I didn’t re-read the entire rule book) that says he only gets a base if he would have been safe if not obstructed.

        Having said that, being obstructed cost Craig at least 3 steps and probably more like 5. There is no one anyone could reasonable say that Craig would not have scored easily if he had not fallen over Middlebrooks.

      • spudchukar - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM

        DeMuth clearly pointed to 3rd base after he made the safe call indicating his decision was based on the obstruction call. Torre, did in fact say that DeMuth should have made the call independently, so he may have errored there, but it matters not, cause the obstruction would have overruled the play anyway.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Torre, did in fact say that DeMuth should have made the call independently, so he may have errored there, but it matters not, cause the obstruction would have overruled the play anyway.

        I’m a little confused. So how should the play have been called? Once Joyce ruled interference then Craig is awarded home?

  2. matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:11 AM

    All well and good, but you are taking the comments of a guy who just came off the field after a brutal loss and dissecting them. In the direct aftermath there was a lot that was hard to process, especially if you are on the losing team. This is why players should be allowed some time to decompress after a game. It’s unfair to rip Peavy’s comments with the benefit of time to deconstruct each thing he said. Peavy had no time to deconstruct the play, yet is being asked his thoughts just minutes after the play is made. I’m fairly certain with some time to think about it and understand the rule his and other player’s thoughts will be a bit more tempered.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

      Peavy himself didn’t think it was time to “process” he was sure as shit certain and decided to rip an ump about it. In a way that he knows that talk radio and everyone else will replay again and again.

      Sure, he was emotional and blowing off steam, but he decided that it was fine to call a guy just doing his job “a joke” anyway.

      • hustleandflomax - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        Absolutely, Craig.

      • proudlycanadian - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

        Peavy should have remembered that his pitching in the first inning was a joke.

      • gibbyfan - Oct 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM

        Given the benefit of replays and intelligent input on this you have to conclude that Jake’s comments are avery poor reflection on him…………..he is just being a major jerk

    • spudchukar - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

      He also said something about this being the second game in a row that ended in a similar manner, a tough call by umps that went against the Red Sox, and I still have no idea what he was talking about.

      • saints97 - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM

        I heard that, too. Maybe he misspoke, or maybe he’s a guy who has only really been beaten by bad umpiring.

      • spudchukar - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM

        Yeah, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, that he meant two games in a row that ended on a throw from the catcher that ended up in the outfield, but that isn’t what he said, and if he thinks the Sox lost games #2 & #3 due to bad umpiring, then they are likely to lose Games #4 and #5. Better to look inward and try to correct mistakes than make the umps your focus.

    • cur68 - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

      Jake Peavy is not some hot headed rookie. He’s all growed up and can own what he said. Those were the right calls made by the umps. Other than that, there is NOTHING left to say about it from an officiating standpoint. Peavy should be ripping De Muth for his “BlindMan’sBluff” strike zone last night, instead. Since he’s gone the route he’s gone, Peavy deserves the backlash. He’s talking out his butt.

      • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM

        That is something I think needs more attention. Demuth was terrible behind the plate last night, for both teams. I don’t know enough about him to know how he is normally as a balls and strikes umpire, but that was deplorable. Just no consistency.

        Joe Kelly had been painting the outside corner with his curve, which in my opinion was a ball, even tho Demuth was calling it a strike. Then on numerous occasions he would throw that same pitch in the same spot with two strikes, hoping to get the strike three call, and Demuth would call it a ball. He had a ton of trouble with low pitches also (some balls some strikes).

        All players ever want is consistency. Even if it’s a questionable strike zone, if it’s consistent players can adjust. Demuth’s strike zone basically changed from pitch to pitch, and batter to batter.

      • cur68 - Oct 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

        I saw the same thing. DeMuth basically hung Jacoby Elsbury out to dry with that strike zone variance.

    • realitypolice - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      Players are free to take all the time in the world to decompress if they want to. It’s Peavy’s responsibility to take the proper amount of time to decompress and deconstruct the play. It’s the reporter’s job to try and get the quotes as quickly as possible, because that’s what the people they work for want. Peavy made a declarative and definitive statement accusing DeMuth of making a bad call. If he was overcome with emotion or hadn’t even watched the play enough times to “deconstruct” it and have an informed opinion, that’s on him, not the reporter.

      • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        I never blamed the reporter getting the quote. I’m saying that Peavy and Red Sox players should get a bit of a break on what is said in the heat of emotion just minutes after the game and I’m sure many will change their tune with some time to reflect. Of course the reporter should get the quote (great job by the reporter).

  3. rrussellndfan - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM

    This for sure makes up for Lester cheating. Karma is a bitch.

    • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      Do you honestly think Cardinals pitchers don’t manipulate the baseball? There’s a reason Matheny and every other manager in baseball would never make an issue of this and that is because every pitching staff does it. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand baseball. If you told each of the managers that the umpires were going to strictly enforce the rule on foreign substances, privately each of them would strongly protest. Not only do pitchers want to use something that gives them better control of the baseball, but the truth is hitters want it too. In October the last thing a hitter wants is to face a pitcher that can’t control a slippery baseball.

      This is the trouble with high profile sporting events. Suddenly every Tom, Dick and Harry that doesn’t follow the game comes out of the woodwork with an uninformed opinion.

      • apkyletexas - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM

        @matt14gg – Nice. Boston fans are well-versed in accusing “everyone else” of cheating when their teams get caught.

        Your comments completely remind me of Pats fans’ defense of Spygate.

      • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM

        I never said “everyone else” was cheating. IMO no one is “cheating”, they are doing what is accepted practice in the game. And you have the wrong guy on Spygate. I’m a Pats fan and I know they cheated.

    • 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM

      Dude, the Cardinals lost 8-1. In your feeble mind, did Lester’s cheating cause the Red Sox to score 8 runs? Did Lester’s cheating force Kozma to drop a catchable ball? Did Lester’s cheating distract Wainwright from catching a routine pop-up?

      You’re pathetic.

    • hustleandflomax - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      I am a Cardinals fan and I most certainly do not approve of this message. The Cards were not winning that game with the bush league pitching and fielding they displayed. Time to get over it.

      • 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        Wow, you’re a lot nicer than I am.

  4. louhudson23 - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    I agree that it is possible that Peavey may see things differently given a bit of time. If he doesn’t,then he is simply mistaken,both in fact and in his outrage….

  5. johnnysoda - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:20 AM

    Gimme a break. Does Lester want some cheese with that whine?

    • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:28 AM

      Not sure what is worse, the fact that you referenced Lester, or that you went with the “wine-whine” pun. Edgy.

      • johnnysoda - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

        (face turns red, darts away in an embarrassed fit)

  6. schreibdave - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    Peavy is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to embarrass himself if he wants to. Talk to any little leaguer who has ever struck out and he’ll tell you that it was the umpires fault.

    MLB should have a new policy allowing umpires to comment on the performance of players – as in “man, that guy was groving BP fast balls right over the heart of the plate. I’m surprised they didnt hang a 10 spot on him that inning.”

  7. schrutebeetfarms - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:28 AM

    this call further reinforced why baseball is my favorite game. in the NBA or NHL, officials routinely swallow their whistles at the end of the game. NFL officials routinely have to make judgement calls on pass inteference that are at best ruled inconsistently. I loved seeing an official make the correct call no matter the game situation. If it is the right call in April, its the right call in October.

    • pens5829 - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      That’s exactly what should have happened here. Calls stand and the game plays on and is decided by the players. NOT the umpires. MLB umpires have some of the biggest egos around. Union mentality.

      • 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:15 AM

        Agenda much?

      • schreibdave - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        Interesting point. I thought you were about to say that it was Obama’s fault.

        Seems that many MLB players have big egos. Do you attribute that to the fact that they belong to a union? Or do you think that people can exhibit negative characteristics regardless of their collective bargaining status.

      • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:47 AM

        The game was decided by the players. One Red Sox player mad an ill-advised and poor throw. Another Red Sox player obstructed a runner. Those actions led to the winning run.

        Calling pass interference or charging in the final seconds of a game when those violations occurred is not an referee deciding a game, it is a player deciding the outcome by committing a foul.

    • indaburg - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM

      I completely agree. The integrity of the game is intact regardless of the calendar. It took a lot of courage, I think, to make that call. The backlash, especially from Boston, is going to be intense. That umpiring crew when they return to Fenway–oh boy.

      Like Craig said, if I was a fan of the Red Sox, I’d have an ulcer today because of that call, not because it was the wrong call, but because it felt so out of their control. Middlebrooks didn’t intend to obstruct the runner–doesn’t matter. He couldn’t get out of the way in time to not obstruct Craig–doesn’t matter. Those are the rules. I’d be cursing Salty for throwing that ball to third. I would be sad today, but I would not be angry because I know that if roles were reversed, the call was right.

      • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        Well then, the Cardinals better do their best to make sure the series doesn’t go back to Boston.

  8. 1historian - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    Craig – 9 times out of 10 you are the joke.

    • apkyletexas - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:52 AM

      Then why the f*** are you on this site? Ass wipe.

      • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:49 AM

        Correct sentiment. Poor execution.

  9. aaron229 - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:41 AM

    This column might be a little overboard, it was a heat of the moment rant after a tough, emotional loss in the World Series. If he still feels the same way today, then this column might be warranted.

    • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:51 AM

      Peavy is a long-time vet. He should know better. Middlebrooks was assaulted by the press core right after the game and he didn’t go on some idiotic diatribe. It is fine to be emotional, but to use that emotion as an excuse to lash out for failure is not excusable.

  10. sincitybonobo - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM

    That’s a lonely position, Jake. Biggest picture, if Salty holds the ball, the game most likely goes to extras. If no obstruction occurred, Craig is safe by a wide margin.

    But, the DeMuth criticism was easier than ripping his batterymate. It was not, however, more accurate or intelligent.

    • thebadguyswon - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM

      Exactly. That’s why I don’t understand the uproar. If Craig hadn’t been tripped up, he would have scored EASILY. They threw the ball away – game over.

  11. saints97 - Oct 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    I’ll give Peavy the benefit of the doubt that he was just emotional in the aftermath of a huge game.

    But he is a veteran. He should know better. Not only does that not do your team any good to attack the ump, but it makes him look like a crybaby.

    Hopefully, he’ll make some calm comments today and apologize for his emotional outburst.

  12. unclemosesgreen - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM

    I’m still not sure what Peavy gives you that the Sox didn’t already have with Dempster. Didn’t like this trade when it happened – now I like it worser.

    He’s been in Boston for all of 13 starts – it’s not like he speaks for the team. The call made me look up obstruction (I totally didn’t understand it properly) and as soon as I read the rule I realized the umps got it right. Gut-punch way to lose. And disturbing to see Farrell botch a simple move, forcing Workman to hold a bat. Just sad for a Sox fan.

    • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      You saw this comment coming though, didn’t you?

      That Jake Peavey, he’s an angry Jeremy Renner. :-)

      • unclemosesgreen - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        Much angrier. Like Grant Balfour angry.

  13. 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM

    My guess — and it’s as reasonable as anything Craig said above — is that Peavy is making sure whatever heat that Salty, Middlebrooks and Farrell are feeling is redirected away from his clubhouse.

    How many times do we have to see teams be motivated by “no one believed in us” before we understand that it’s just about the central narrative that motivates athletes? I think Peavy is trying to set up an “us against the world” viewpoint (if he doesn’t hold it already). That’s what athletes do, and I believe that’s what Peavy is doing here.

    • saints97 - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM

      I think that’s an interesting point, but he didn’t have to go all Ryan Braun and start insulting a guy who was just doing his job.

      • 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:49 AM

        Totally agree. I should have added it was not an honorable thing to do (if my guess is correct).

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

      It’s possible, but don’t you have to measure a possible blow back from the umpires from referring to them as a joke?

    • schreibdave - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

      You are giving Peavy waaaay too much credit. He’s not thinking about anybody but himself. He’s an entitled, self centered baby.

      • 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:47 AM

        I said it was a guess. You’re the one who is too sure of himself and willing to impugn others’ characters.

    • paperlions - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      Maybe I would be more mature, I don’t know. But….if I was the umpire, it would be really hard for me not to giggle at any Red Sox player that disputed a call the rest of the series and then make some comment like, “What? You didn’t think that was funny? You don’t like jokes?”

      You can disagree with a call, but you can’t do what Peavy did.

  14. yahmule - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    Fine that sore loser!

    • matt14gg - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM

      I think they probably will.

  15. dontbsuchapuss - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:21 AM

    No peavy your a joke that was the correct call so stop complaining after the video review it’s obvious he put his legs up to trip him. It’s the proper call but when it decides a game people complain about unless its in their favor. It goes both ways bench him or shut up and play ball.

  16. emdash01 - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM

    I can’t judge him too harshly for being upset in the immediate aftermath of the game, and lashing out at the umps is the easiest way to channel that anger.

    But, man. A pitcher questioning the call is foolish enough, but criticizing the ump’s judgment in general? When, if this goes to a game 7, he might be pitching with this same crew calling the game? Just about the worst thing he could do. There’s a reason you generally only see retired players criticize the umps’ calls publicly.

  17. schreibdave - Oct 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    I wonder what the call would have been had Middlebrooks kept his legs down. Had he just laid flat on the ground with his legs down, the ump COULD have ruled that he was not really an obstruction. Craig, a professional athlete, could have been expected to step over a player laying flat and motionless on the ground. Once Middlebrooks lifts his legs, which served no purpose other than to block Craig, it becomes obvious that Craig was obstructed.

    • nbjays - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

      Intent is irrelevant in an obstruction call.

      • spudchukar - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:35 AM

        Not exactly. I think Schreib is on to something. Remember Joyce is making a judgement call, and Middlebrooks exacerbated the obstruction by lifting his legs. I find his comments and interpretation dubious. By obstructing more, he may have made the play look more obvious, influencing Joyce’s decision.

        Granted it was obstruction either way, but Middlebrooks didn’t help.

    • hustleandflomax - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:48 AM

      My thing is that it seems reasonable to expect a baserunner’s only focus should be getting to the next base. They shouldn’t have to do anything other than run to the next base. They already have to process a lot of information just to do that without having to think about jumping over someone that’s in the way.

      I don’t know if that comment makes sense to the average reader, but it sounded good in my head! :)

  18. realitypolice - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM

    Let’s be completely clear about this: The Boston Red Sox lost game three because of a throwing error by Jarrod Saltalamacchia. Everything that happens afterward is the result of a extremely poor throw that he never should have attempted in the first place. Just as pitchers are not charged with runs that score due to errors, no one involved in the play after that error is “responsible” for the outcome of the game. No bad throw, no score on the play. Period.

    By the way, BOTH Sox loses are directly attributed to ill-advised bad throws from home plate to third base. Maybe they should work on that.

    • 18thstreet - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

      If the Red Sox escape the 9th inning, the game is still tied. There’s a 50-50 chance that the Red Sox lose in extra innings, so it’s not fair (or accurate) to state as fact that the Red Sox lost BECAUSE of Salty’s throw.

      • nbjays - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:21 AM

        But it is fair and accurate to say they lost in the 9th inning because of Salty’s throw.

      • realitypolice - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        That statement is ridiculous. You could say that about every game ending play in history. “If that play doesn’t happen, it would still be tied and who knows what would have happened”. Ummm……yeah. But the play did happen, it happened because of Salty, and it ended the game.

  19. sincitybonobo - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM

    No doubt about it.

    Making that throw is incomprehensible, given the Breslow play in Game 2- and the fact that Pete Kozma is due up with two outs.

    Pedroia made a fine play with the infield in to record the 26th out. Mission accomplished. The odds were in your favor for #27 in the next AB.

  20. nbjays - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM

    Obstruction, Craig… not interference.

    Obstruction is a fielder getting in the way of a base runner doing his job.
    Offensive interference is a base runner getting in the way of a fielder doing his job.
    Defensive interference is a catcher getting in the way of a batter doing his job.

  21. stlunatik - Oct 27, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    he’s a bum like the rest of his team. go back to Boston and be strong, cry babies

    • jimeejohnson - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:32 PM

      Lobster/Crab/Clams > BBQ Ribs.

    • schreibdave - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM

      That’s a good point. Does being “Boston Strong” include whining that your team lost because of a good call?

      On the other hand, Pedroia’s comments were smart and professional. He said something like “this loss isn’t going to define us.” Well said.

  22. sdemp - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM

    A Workd Series gane should never end on a judgement call like last night, but that’s besides the point.

    The cults known as Craig was falling over himself before falling on Middlebrooks.

    Middlebrooks did not make Craig stumble and therefore should not have been obstruction. . . unless obstruction was called on the turf monster.

    • bluesfan58 - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      Huh?

    • cubb1 - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:22 PM

      sdemp must have had a stroke while typing.

      • jimeejohnson - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:31 PM

        It didn’t effect his brain, which was already limited.

    • anxovies - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:43 PM

      See that little red line that appears under words when you type? That means that the word is misspelled. Now let’s move on to the proper spelling of “clutz.”

    • schreibdave - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      “A World Series game should never end on a judgement call”

      So what would you do? Change the rules when the call would end the game? So for example, obstruction and interference would be permitted with two outs in the bottom of the 9th? Or would you call a “do over?”

      What do you propose?

  23. cubb1 - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    Joyce made the initial call, not Demuth. It was the right call, Peavy is just whining.

  24. jimeejohnson - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:30 PM

    makeham98 – Oct 24, 2013 at 2:11 PM
    Crybaby Culture = The Cardinal Way.

    Tables are turned
    Now it’s YOUR turn to cry!

  25. stevem7 - Oct 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM

    113 years as a franchise playing at the ML level and the Boston Red Sox AND their fans still don’t know the rules of the game. Hope that Peavy gets a nice $250,000.00 fine from MLB for his disgraceful comments about the umpire and MLB uses the fine to hold reading comprehension classes up in the Boston area.

    • infectorman - Oct 27, 2013 at 8:21 PM

      in a mere 5 sq miles of Boston, there is more brain power in the entire geographic area of St Louis. You are living proof of my statement.

      Here’s an idea; back away from the keyboard, power down the machine, and reflect about your insignificant little life.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2835)
  2. D. Ortiz (2131)
  3. J. Hamilton (2085)
  4. N. Arenado (2085)
  5. C. Kershaw (2044)
  1. G. Stanton (2023)
  2. A. Rizzo (1944)
  3. A. Pujols (1826)
  4. A. Pagan (1775)
  5. H. Ramirez (1707)