1975 WS Gm3: Fisk gets tangled up with Armbrister

[@Jimbo898]

Has to be one of the top series I have ever seen, hall of Famers everywhere.

[@rabidgoldfish65]

Watching this as a 10 year old in '75 I remember thinking 'Why didn't Fisk just tag the batter, he was RIGHT there. Could have been the easiest double play ever.

[@Brammy007a]

Actually the easier double play was to go to second for the force then back to first. Fisk had the right idea, but was victim to one of the worst umpiring calls in history.

[@ericradford2142]

Malcom Tent if Fisk tags Armbrister and doesn't throw wildly to second base, there's no controversy.

[@davelogan3051]

+Brammy007a saw this as a kid also Fisk was like a rocket behind plate look how fast he gets to the ball that actually accelerated the problem that Whole series was classic

[@hamburg1306]

Definitely interference and cost Red Sox the game and World Series.

[@zzremington]

I'm a lifelong Reds fan, remember watching this when I was 12. In game 7, the Sox took the lead and I dropped an F-bomb, dad made me cool down an inning in my room and then let me watch the rest of the game. Making my first trip to Fenway this October.

[@dirtonknees2]

I freakin love listening to the old announcers

[@staunchx]

Oh ya! Gimme Gowdy, Gargiola & Kubek any day. Brenneman an ace as well.

[@TommyCage0736]

I met Fisk last summer, the dude is still strong as an ox. 6'2 and at least 220 pounds. Still in great shape. Good guy

[@MikeBroderick33]

TommyCage0736 My favorite player growing up. I loved Fisk. Mookie Betts today.

[@mlbashanti8885]

@Paul Kryder why

[@michael.prescott4016]

I remember his commericals for smokeless tobacco, cut down that tree, " I hope it clears the fence"

[@4IUSox2]

My guy, Fisk!!!

[@stevesausen7]

That was a great world series in 75.

[@t21229513]

Correct

[@rtpoe]

Only one of the seven games was decided before the 9th inning.....

[@teofilstevenson]

The days of the Big Red Machine were awesome.. Loved them, hated their NL foes the (classic) Dodgers. As for this incident Fisk is right and concept of replay, which would have helped, was only a fantasy then.

[@spirg]

Last NL team to win 2 WS in a row !!!! 48 years strong 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻

[@michaelvronsky2013]

Armbrister actually pulled up when he bumped into Fisk. 0:04 -Armbrister was not in his way when he threw the ball. Fisk just made a bad throw.

[@jbrone1965]

Looks like Fisk got in Armbrister's way, not the other way around.

[@ChrisDonoghue-y8n]

Neither one of you understands baseball rules.

[@paleo704]

@@jbrone1965correct

[@TL2354]

@@ChrisDonoghue-y8nNeither does Fisk. All he had to do was tag the batter

[@michaelfitting1164]

@@TL2354 He was going for the double play. If he tags the batter that takes away the force at 2b and makes the out there far less likely.

[@staunchx]

Ive seen this posted in the comments, but it bears mentioning again: Its crazy this call (or lack thereof) is still being debated nearly 50 years later. Testament to the legacy & drama of the 1975 World Series.

[@gordoh7634]

One of the hardest calls ever to make. It could have gone either way. In reality, Fisk caught the ball and threw to second base. Armbrister backed away, this all happened in seconds. Very difficult call to make I could see if your Red Sox fan how you would think it was interference.

[@Doubletrackedvoice]

Sox fan here. Joyce made the right call. I saw it the instant it happened.

[@petermoss4551]

I'm likely the only professional umpire here, and I don't say that to bully anyone ... almost the opposite. I also watched this on TV as an 11-year-old kid and saw it in real time, and understood the entire explanation of the "NO CALL" zone around home plate. There's also a "NO CALL" zone around 1B. (The closer the batter/runner gets to 1B, the more of a straight line he's entitled to between himself and the bag ... regardless of the fielder making a play on the ball in the area.) This took a group effort to screw up ... and all parties involved did their parts. Why Armbrister hesitated (did not interfere) but then bolted (and bumped Fisk) is beyond me, but be that as it may, it does not rise to the level of Interference according to the MLB (OBR) Rule Book, or any of its interpretation manuals for a play right around home plate. On the 2nd hand, Fisk most definitely had a clear throw to 2B and he air-mailed it. The fielding may have been impeded, but the throw was not. On the 3rd hand, Fisk most definitely gambled huge by not tagging Armbrister and going for the tag on Geronimo. He had the time. On the 4th hand, Barnett most definitely called Armbrister out in erroneously thinking he'd been tagged. The answers as to why no one argued Barnett calling Armbrister out are simple ... 1) No one saw it 2) No one including Fisk even heard it 3) Fisk could not have gotten a double play if Interference were called ... that would have resulted in an immediate dead ball, and Geronimo sent back to 1B. Fisk would have settled for one out, but his entire argument was, "It should have been a double play!" (Well, you can't have it both ways) The only way you can call Interference on this play is if it is judged to be INTENTIONAL. Not reckless, not stupid, not careless, ... but INTENTIONAL. And at that point, the umpire can even invoke the double play if he feels the intent was to break up the double play.

[@kevinmoore2929]

I've hung up my mask but if you don't know why Armbrister did what he did, then you need to watch more baseball. he certainly got in Fisk's way on purpose. Pudge indeed airmailed the throw(as a catcher, I'd have tried to get the call as well to have Geronimo sent back to first but my throw would have skipped off the mound ;) ). this mixed crew should have gotten together and gotten the call right. though I don't believe a WS game has been protested recently, I don't think I'd have protested this one with the league office but I sure would have lit into that crew in post game interviews, fine or not. this was certainly a group effort, no doubt.

[@DAK4Blizzard]

Kevin, if the interference was intentional, the batter-runner wouldn't have ducked his head and wouldn't have backed off the catcher. When I bunt the ball, and most players I know bunt the ball, the instinct is to go to 1B, not check for a yield sign for oncoming traffic. The batter-runner had that instinct as well. If he had continued his run thru the catcher without ducking or backing off, then I'd agree with your judgement of intent. Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment [Rule 7.09( j) Comment]: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball and any fielder, including the pitcher, obstructs a runner going to first base, “obstruction” shall be called and the base runner awarded first base. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2016/official_baseball_rules.pdf (Quoted from top of page 62)

[@kevinmoore2929]

DAK4Blizzard it's been a while since I watched this initially, so I went back and watched it again trying to see it the way you did. Three beers and a shot of whiskey later, I could see where you might come up with the "yield sign" conclusion that you did. So we will have to agree to disagree on this call. I happen to know a former big league catcher who was still playing when this happened, so to be fair to your POV, i'm going to send this to him and get his two cents on it.

[@DAK4Blizzard]

Kevin Moore I'm going to try seeing it from your POV and then give a rebuttal to those points. From the catcher's POV: the batter-runner is either carelessly or intentionally making contact with me -- I have a path in front of me to the ball, and the batter-runner is coming across that path. The batter-runner should know/sense that I am going forward to field the ball. He could've gotten out ahead of the ball (he instead hesitated), yielded to me, or taken a more circumventive path towards 1B. He does stop, but it's within my path -- evidence of intentional interference. And as contact is made, he should do more than halt; he should back off rather than me nudge him to ensure my path is cleared. Rebuttal from the batter's POV: I've laid down a bunt, identifying where the ball is, and then taking my first couple strides into the base-path to get to 1B. The catcher is behind me, not in the base-path when I take those strides. I then sense the catcher moving in. I halt to a stop, and duck before contact is made. My halt occurs before the catcher reaches me and is not directly in front of the ball (the batter is close but still clearly behind the ball when he halts). I allow the catcher to push off me to get room; I don't push back (arm is tucked in). Now with space, he fields the ball and makes a throw. Note that the commentators never mention intent. They said Fisk has "got to have room". That's important, but it's not the entire criteria for calling interference.

[@t21229513]

The pro umpire says that Barnett called Armbrister out? He was pointing the ball fair.

[@Doubletrackedvoice]

Fisk wanted to throw out the lead runner, that's all.

[@t21229513]

Not only was it a good call, it was the right call. There is no interference in the immediate area around home plate. Runner has as much right to run to first as fielder has in fielding the ball. Nobody was robbed, the umpires didn't mess up, and there is no conspiracy against the Red Sox.

[@jthofner]

Larry Barnett, the home plate umpire made the correct call.

[@t21229513]

jthofner I agree.

[@jthofner]

t21229513 Just another example how the commentators do not know the rules. MLB after game reaffirmed that Larry Barnett made the correct call according to the rule book.

[@t21229513]

That is true but he was vilified in the press, esp. by Curt Gowdy.

[@davethompson3140]

jthofner -I like to know when MLB affirmed the call because I believe you're full of shit. The rule book states that a player cannot interfere, impede ect.. a fielder making a play for the ball. I doubt MLB would say what you said they said for obvious reasons. That's like me saying it came out 10 years later that the home plate umpire made a bet on Cincinnati to win this game!!

[@Vitte4]

Where's the interference? Fisk, who had 50 lbs on Armbrister, literally ran him over to get to the ball. Then, he had a *clear* throw to second for the force (see 1:55 & 2:43) & simply sailed it for an error (a good throw would have had him -- see 0:05). Goat horns for this game go on Fisk -- not home plate umpire Barnett, who made a great no-call. Have to wonder which game Kubek was watching (or what he was smoking. He was an otherwise astute color man, his annoying voice notwithstanding).

[@bluestar9463]

Didn't see Armbrister start his run to first, hesitate to the point of taking a half step backward, then stop and make contact with Fisk, eh Chuckie? Reds fan much?

[@socraticgadfly]

I think even a very good throw had only a 50-50 shot.

[@socraticgadfly]

That said, there's a bit of baseball circular history. Barnett was on second base, game 5, 1972 ACLS, when Joey Rice called Silent George Hendrick safe on a blown call at 1st, and he went on to score the winning run.

[@ruthlesshack1279]

@@bluestar9463 He's not as much a Reds fan as Kubek and Gowdy were Red Sox Homers, especially Gowdy.

[@mrmajikjr]

@@bluestar9463 If anything, Ambrister went backwards to get out of his way.

[@df5295]

What was Armbrister suppose to do, not run to first base?

[@jms1963]

This is merely episode # 46 of "No One Whines Like A Red Sox Fan", starring Peter Gammons and Eddie Andleman. It's always something nefarious the other team concocts to cause the Red Sox to lose, not just play the game better. The answer to your question is rhetorical, and Armbrister also wasn't the reason Fisk threw the ball into centerfield. But it's the Red Sox, so the whining will commence shortly. Always someone else's fault.

[@webtraveler1]

Exactly right. Batter is entitled to the base bath. Could have worked in reverse had Ed been out at first. Could have argued Fisk was in his way to run to 1B

[@peterrand1484]

Except he didn't. He bunted, stood and stared at it, then started and stopped in front of Fisk. If he had run directly out of the box, none of this would have happened.

[@tonycrabtree3416]

@@peterrand1484 Nah. That’s not in the rules. Armbrister is allowed to run to first.

[@rolfbernserke4735]

Ed was is in the baseline. Period

[@Rayoscope]

I'll never forget Carlton Fisk. He hit a home run in extra innings to win a game and won me a shitload of money. With the dough I took a six month grand tour of Europe. I bet four underdogs on one fat bet and had already won three and Red Sox/Baltimore was the last game. Fisk hit the winning homer while I was sitting in my car stuck in traffic. People got out of their cars and rushed over scared. They thought I was being killed. It was one of the greatest feelings I've ever had. It was just like that scene in Bad Lieutenant (1992) but with the exact opposite outcome.

[@edwolf6017]

I hope that was the only thing you and Bad Lieutenant have in common :)

[@GavinOCo]

great story lol

[@brianjonestone6908]

This was unfortunate, and certainly frustrating for the Red Sox, but it really isn't anymore interference on the batter's part than it is on the catcher's part. When a batter hits a fair ball, he's not required to wait at the plate until the fielder runs after the ball. If you watch the batter's eyes here, you'll see he is completely unaware of the fielder's location. He bunts, looks at the ball to see if it's fair, and then starts to run to first base, which is his right. If one wanted to get technical about it, one could complain that the fielder interfered with the runner's progress to first base - if the catcher had made an accurate throw to second, then they doubled the batter up at first, then Cincinnati could've made an argument that the catcher interfered with the batter's path to first base. This batter's only other alternative, considering where the ball had landed, was to freeze at the plate while the fielder ran after it, which is NOT required of the runner/batter - he has a total right to run out his hit, as long as he doesn't go out of the baseline, which he certainly did NOT...... Bottom line: by the rules, it could only have been interference if the batter had gone out of the baseline on his progress to first base.

[@Ariamaluum]

When I saw this the first time, what you said was my first reaction.

[@camera0o0]

+Brian Jonestone Yes, the runner has the right to run towards first, or he can stand at the plate and see if the ball goes foul. Those are his choices. You say "watch the batter's eyes here, you'll see he is completely unaware of the fielder's location' which is a very silly statement. The batter knew exactly where the catcher started the play, in a crouch behind the plate. He knew where the ball went, and he knew the path between those two locations. When he left the box he took two steps and stopped in the line between the catcher and where the catcher needed to go to make the play, and that is interference. There is no baseball reason to stop in that location, (look at the frame at 3 seconds and at 2:57) Fisk ran into him from behind when armbrister stopped and crouched, so Fisk did not stop Armbrister's run to first, Armbrister took a fast step across the plate into the line between the catcher and the ball and stopped . Had he jogged slowly to first without stopping, that would be his right and might given the runner the extra time he needed, and could not have been called interference, but by stopping where he did, it should have been called. What is on this clip is clearly a runner acting not in an effort to reach his base, but to keep a defensive player from getting to the ball in a timely manner.

[@tombuckley7467]

It doesn't matter if the intent on the part of the batter isn't to impede the catcher (in this case). If it happens, it's batter interference. That's the rule.

[@alanhess9306]

The fielder always has the right of way when attempting to field a batted ball.

[@peterrand1484]

OBR 6.03(a)(3) would suggest otherwise. B/R stepped out of the box, stopped, and it was that action that hindered the catcher. If he had bunted and started proceeding directly down the line toward first base, then have contact occur, then you would have nothing.

[@alanhess9306]

Read Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: There is no interference, the umpire was correct.

[@miketheyunggod2534]

The batter was moving toward first base. No interference.

[@toddsmith8049]

It does not matter. If you impede the progress of the catcher in any way trying to get to the ball, you're out.

[@davanmani556]

But he didn’t leave the batter’s box.

[@bluestar9463]

Moving toward first? Was that after he hesitated and took a step back, then went forward and interfered with Fisk? C'mon.

[@patrickgray5633]

Nope Reds fan here that was interference he’s got to have room to field the ball & Ed Armbrister made contact with him during the play.

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

@@toddsmith8049 Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment [Rule 7.09( j) Comment]: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2016/official_baseball_rules.pdf (Quoted from top of page 62)

[@mmdeutsch]

I saw this live as a 10 year old in 75. Great series. Epic home runs in crucial situations. For this play, its really a no brainer. Armbrister has the right to run to first base and he was only in fair territory because Fisk pushed him into it. He didnt obstruct Fisk, Fisk pushed him. Then, Fisk had clear balance and made a wild throw to 2nd. it happens. As for those that say he tagged Armbrister, it doesnt work that way. You can only tag the runner with the ball, so either in your hand or in your glove. If you push him with your hand, which Fisk did, while the ball is in your glove, that isnt a tag. That would be the same as saying when the pitcher throws over to first, if the first baseman tags the runner with his throwing hand as he catches the ball with his glove, the runner is out. That isnt the rules of baseball. Umps got it right, Fisk threw the ball away. Its as simple as that. Sparky Anderson would have went apeshit if they called it any other way.

[@WillieDuitt1]

That would be great if Armbruster was running but he wasn't he dropped the bat at Fisks feet and then stopped running long enough to disrupt Fisk. Fisk did not tag him but should have. Isn't it great we are still talking about this 45 years later....and their are some that think baseball is boring.

[@staunchx]

Those who think baseball is boring have no idea how to watch baseball, or have ADD. @@WillieDuitt1

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

I saw this live and many times afterwards. This is the MLB's version of the Zapruder Film. I thought the same thing then as I do now: Ed Armbrister and Carlton Fisk collided and Armbrister didn't stop running until he and Fisk collided. Proof to me that Armbrister didn't interfere because it was a natural reaction to stop.

[@bluestar9463]

I'll make it simple for you, Big D. If Armbrister immediately and continuously ran to first after batting the ball, would there have been an issue? Clear interference with the catcher making the play.

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

@@bluestar9463 no there wouldn't have been an issue. But there also wouldn't have been an issue if Fisk didn't airmail the ball to Kentucky. Armbrister was running to first and only stopped when Fisk collided with him. It was that simple.

[@bluestar9463]

It's the interference that forces Fisk another 2 steps toward first in order to make the throw. Stevie Wonder would have called interference on this play, bro.

[@ruthlesshack1279]

@@bluestar9463 Bullshit, the Umps called it correctly, the call still stands and the Cincinnati Reds are still the 1975 World Series Champions.

[@imola23]

@@bluestar9463 Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@completestrangeronline7284]

There’s a line in the rulebook that coversthis situation…. “When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.”

[@Amber90125]

I miss hearing Tony Kubek calling baseball games

[@terronymusbraddock2350]

I'm sure it was hard to call in real time, but that was outright interference.

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@scolley0616]

Looking at Arbrister when he bunted the ball, it looked as though his left foot was outside the batter's box when the ball was struck. I am a Sox fan and it seemed every time I went to Fenway, Barnett was there. The boos were relentless when the crew was announced.

[@easyenetwork2023]

That is a better argument than interference.

[@thephotoandthestory]

I was a boy when Fisk played for the White Sox. As a lifelong hater of the Red Sox, I guarantee I would have hated him, but just reading about him and watching clips of his career, I see why he was so popular.

[@chrismanzoni3586]

Attended Brinkman Froemming umpire school in 1991, Larry was 100% correct in his call and his crew chief backed him up and so did the commissioner of baseball. The announcers and the Bosox were 100% wrong - and it didn't matter, Larry got death threats for years. Life is like this sometimes, do everything right and get punished for it. I love baseball player logic - bump the batter and then promptly chuck the ball into center field. Whose fault is it? The umpire of course!

[@df5295]

Tony Kubek crying on TV about it didn't help!

[@timothyfenton2619]

he was 10000% wrong

[@patrickcondon7216]

Why does no one mention that Armbrister has to avoid touching the ball? If he just takes off and the ball touches him, he's out. So part of his hesitation has to be avoiding touching the ball. As for everyone else, no, the fielder does not have an absolute right to field the ball while the baserunner waits patiently. You are being absurd. The fielder has a right to try to field the ball, and the baserunner has a right to the base path. To say one has to yield to the other is asinine.

[@jjumpir21]

Not assine at all,,a runner always has to avoid a fielder fielding a batted ball ,,he can run around them without penalty

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

@@jjumpir21 People are acting like Armbrister is the one running into Fisk when they talk about him "having to avoid" a fielder (which is true). But here, he was the one being run into. That distinction is important.

[@idansolon4715]

I don't see how the runner was at fault. He bunted the ball and when he realized it was fair, he started running but Fisk encroached into the baseline on his way to fielding the ball & he bumped into the runner.

[@DAK4Blizzard]

It's okay for Fisk to try and field the ball; he's entitled to do that. So "encroach" wouldn't be a word I'd choose. Also, if the batter-runner had continued through the catcher after making contact, that would likely be grounds for interference, as it establishes intent for interference. But the overall point is right, that the batter isn't interfering.

[@brileyvandyke5792]

The runner didn't intentionally interfere. He ducked and moved his body away from Fisk. Fisk rushed his throw and was off target. Correct call. This is a great example of how broadcast media can influence an audience. I understand the Red Sox fury, but it was the correct call.

[@df5295]

The only people who think it's interference are Red Sox fans and Tony Kubek!

[@staringatthesun861]

This was much more complex in reality than it was reading about it. The account I read made it seem like Armbrister stood there nefariously to ruin the play. In reality there were seemingly a million things for Armbrister to process. There was the bunt that could've gone foul. There was him having to avoid touching the ball (or he'd have been OUT). There was the bat he dropped right in front of his right foot. There was Fisk lunging forward to field the ball. There was pitcher Jim Willoughby charging towards the mound. There was the umpire running up behind them. Oh and did I mention it was the 10th inning of a tied game in the World Series?

[@chrismanzoni3586]

Barnett got this 100% correct - and got death threats for doing his job. Idiot announcers didn't know the rule.

[@SN-nh6pq]

Fisk blew that himself. Bench & Munson definitely outshined Fisk in those 70’s World Series

[@johncarnevale7]

Larry Barnett blew the call!!!!! He was booed at every game at Fenway Park til he retired.

[@Yausbro]

he made the right call

[@louarmstrong6128]

Just because Red Sox fans boo him, doesn't mean he made the wrong call....this is what's wrong with Boston and New York and Philly fans...just a bunch of idiots screaming

[@tomvanriper8084]

Thing is, Fisk still fielded the ball very quickly and had a clear look to second. He just made a bad throw.

[@musicum22]

Armbrister is just standing there staring at the ball. Today he probably gets called for that.

[@GizmoBeach]

Fisk ran into Armbrister who didn’t realize for 0.2 seconds his bunt attempt hadn’t been ruled foul, hence his not taking off instantaneously. The way I’ve read about this play ever since it happened, you’d think Ed stood there for awhile then tackled Fisk as he tried to reach for the ball. 🙄

[@August8th1969]

Jerry Remy said during a Red Sox telecast about a week ago (today being May 15, 2016) that when he was with the California Angels, he had shouted out some shit to Larry Barnett from the Angels dugout one night. He said back in those days the umpires had to go through the Angel dugout in order to make their way on to the field. Remy said the next night that Barnett, told Remy they were going to get him. Remy explained that this meant that the umpires were going to intentionally try and make some bad calls against him. Anyhow, I know Remy was not a part of the '75 Sox club, and I understand the rule. Still, I think it was intentional interference.

[@t21229513]

Pointless remark.

[@toddmarcum8057]

Watch the replay without the sound in real time. The announcers shade this. Fisk took an angle that forced the collision. At the same time, Armbrister tripped on the bat. Weird play, but no violation.

[@patrickgray5633]

I’m a Reds fan always have been but that was Batters Interference I don’t care what anyone tells me he was in Carlton Fisk way.

[@webtraveler1]

batter (runner) is entitled to the base bath. That play happens from time to time, a quicker catcher vs a batter.

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@staringatthesun861]

Then where the heck was Armbrister supposed to go? Was he supposed to just freeze there?

[@clubhouseme]

hugely controversial at the time, the press went on and on about it.In retrospect though as a Reds fan, Armbrister should have immediately been called out.Fisk still threw it into center field, that's on him not Armbrister.

[@TravisMcGee151]

You are so right.

[@easyenetwork2023]

Interference would have only had the batter out, not the runner, and I believe the error would have stood. Plus, Fisk could have easily tagged Armbrister.

[@lucypeco8467]

I forgot that umpires wore jackets.

[@kevin62387]

And each league had there own different jackets so you knew who were AL and NL umpires.

[@WinslowSly1]

Armbrister didn't run he just stood there and interfered with Fisk. The ball was in fair territory. You can't block the catcher when the ball is in play.

[@alan30189]

He tried to run, obviously, but held up when he knew he was going to collide with Fisk. They did bump together. Regardless, if the rolls were reversed, and it was Bench catching, Bench would have thrown the runner out by five feet.

[@buffalobraves9]

alan30189 Nice try. It's interference and Bench would have had no better chance than Fisk. Both tremendous catchers.

[@alan30189]

John Boutet I agree, both great catchers, but Fisk couldn't carry Bench's jock strap.

[@buffalobraves9]

You said Bench would have thrown him out by 5 feet while being interfered with. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Fisk is in the Hall of Fame for a reason. And at the time Fisk was probably the 2nd or 3rd best catcher in the game trailing only slightly Bench and possibly Munson.

[@alan30189]

John Boutet Gee, Einstein, you found an exaggeration. But Bench was the best all-round catcher in the 70s. Fisk played a lot longer.

[@Lava1964]

I umpired both softball and baseball for 30 years. in softball, the fielder has the right of way to play a batted ball--period. If the batter-runner gets in the fielder's way, it's interference. Baseball's rule basically says there is no right of way for the fielder in this case. I like the softball rule better.

[@joerogers4077]

Umpires back in the 70's and 80's had their heads up their asses. Umpires had such ego back then, they refused help from another umpire who might have had a better view . This could have cost the Sox this game, in fact it did. No way an umpire should be involved in the outcome of the game. MLB instituted instant replay for issues like this. Darrell Johnson should have played the game under protest after the game. You want to see how "professional" umpires get together to get the call right Game 6 ALCS when Aroid, purposely slapped the ball out of Arroyo's hand. The six umpires got together and called him out, took a run off the board for the Yankees due to the interference, Jeter who came around to score as the ball went into right field foul territory. would have been on second after Aroid's ground out if he did not cheat but Jeter was put back on first. Yankee Stadium had fans throwing balls, beer bottles, batteries you name it Sox players had to leave the field for it was danderous.. The umpires got together and got the call right. The video for that is on you tube. I also hate the fact the home plate umpire who was squeezing Clemens in the 1990 ALCS game 3 had such thin skin and threw out Clemens for stating he did no like the small strike zone. How do you throw out the team's ace when the team is down 0-2 and trying to get game three. Red Sox dugout went crazy. No umpire should ever instill his bad call or his ego into a game that means so much.

[@mae2759]

...except the Plate umpire got the call correct

[@t21229513]

The plate umpire was correct, by rule. Having a huddle would not have changed the outcome of the play. And you talk about Aroid? What was Clemens on when he cursed out Terry Cooney? It's not thin skin. Nobody is allowed to get personal with an umpire on a baseball field. You is the so called magic word.

[@joerogers4077]

t21229513 What happened in the 2013 WS. Sox in the field ground ball to Pedrioa throws home to Salty. out two Salty. to Middlebrooks goes down LF line Craig gets tied up with Middlebrooks. Craig is given home on interference. St. Louis wins. This play here, Armbtister should be safe but the runner going ton 3rd should have to come back to second.

[@joerogers4077]

+t21229513. That was 1990. Just look at Clemens" frame 1984-1995. He bulked up after signing with Toronto. Cooney was known as a hot head.

[@t21229513]

42 ejections over 18 seasons and 2200 games is a hothead?

[@warlordofbritannia]

I wasn’t even alive at the time and this play pisses me off lol

[@billny33]

I know the rules do not govern intent, only whether the player interfered or not. But to me, Armbrister's body language suggests he is trying everything in his power to avoid interfering. He bunts, takes a step towards first, realizes wait the catcher has to make a play in front of me, stops short, then starts running again after Fisk releases it. Perhaps the umpire decided to give Armbrister some credit for his restraint at not just running to first right through the play. The problem was, the whole play happens inside of such a cramped space it might as well all have been inside of a phone booth. Yes, maybe some part of his body may have incidentally got in the way of Fisk's throw or made it awkward or uncomfortable. So what is the batter supposed to do in the situation? Just stand in the batters' box and wait? That would be super counterintuitive. Ed did the best job he could to play by the rules and the umps gave him the benefit of the doubt. Also, while you can argue Ed slightly interfered with Fisk's ability to field the ball, he still did field it cleanly. It was a bad throw that got away. By the time Fisk wound up and fired, I think Armbrister is completely out of his way at the moment.

[@slocumb1270]

Armbrister has the right to run to first base after he puts the ball in play. Not his job to avoid a fielder who steps in his path.

[@susanmeinhardt5557]

Yes it is. Rule 7.3.5 If Armbrister interferes with Fisk at all, the batter is out and the runner has to go back to first.

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

@@susanmeinhardt5557 Maybe it was different in 1975 (I don't have access to that rule book), but what you're saying here does not seem to be correct at all as it pertains to the game today. In fact, it's pretty explicit that what you're saying here is just wrong. (Again, maybe the rule book was different in 1975 but what you're saying about a batter runner interfering "at all" is certainly NOT the criteria umpires are instructed to go by today.) It's important to note that there is a distinction made in the rules between a "batter" interfering and a "BATTER-RUNNER" trying to go to first base within the baseline. Top of page 62. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2016/official_baseball_rules.pdf "Rule 6.01(a )(10) Comment (Rule 7.09( j) Comment ): When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called." If Fisk makes a decent throw we're not having this debate anyways. And Fisk muffing the throw had little to do with Armbrister.

[@louarmstrong6128]

If Armbrister had just kept running like he should have, there wouldn't be any controversy...

[@easyenetwork2023]

You cannot interfere with the fielder in fair territory if you are running to first. The only way you could is if you back into the catcher or ran a fielder over before 1st base maybe. If the ball hits you in the back in fair territory even, that is not interference either. The only way that counts is if you run into the fielder or throw your body into the way. This is different than a stolen base attempt.

[@roseandbench]

Fisk could have an easy double play.

[@kencummings953]

Geronimo got a great break off first. That would have been very close at second even with a good throw.

[@stevesausen7]

I remember watching it on the tv right when it happened I remember it.

[@michael.prescott4016]

he made a bad throw, he had plenty of space

[@stevekirsch6803]

Interference, no question about it! Lifelong Red Sox fan!

[@Yausbro]

well your wrong

[@TCO1216]

Yup. Defensive Obstruction by Fisk. Should’ve just tagged him and went to second but nope

[@edwolf6017]

Larry Barnett was booed at Fenway after this for the rest of his career

[@danielchampagne9168]

Clear interference. Armbrister starts running down to first, then takes a step backwards when Pudge is trying to field the ball.

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@whocraft3614]

Actually, you're not supposed to get in the way of the runner heading to first base on a fair ball. The umpires could have ruled that interference against the Red Sox. Carlton was guilty of trying to do too much.

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@petermanson3475]

This was a horrific call by the official, and a show of what's been disgusting about MLB Umpires pretty much since the beginning. They're allowed to bend the rules to their own interpretation, and they do so completely on ego and as control freaks. He initially held his fist up to rule Ambrister out, and the reason was clearly that he saw interfered with the catchers ability to get to the ball. Anyone trying to find and quote and refer to the new modern rule book's interpretation, and not the rule from back then is being absurd, because back then, the rule was clearly the one the commentators were quoting. Anyone saying he wasn't calling him out but indicating it was a fair ball doesn't know the signal for fair ball vs that of an out. Signalling a fair ball would've had him pointing his finger in the other direction. There'd have been no reason to bring his hand to a fist and cocked it. He only pointed his finger down the line after Fisk threw the ball. But, after ducking and obstructing Ambrister also then pushed Fisk off balance making a move towards 1st base, and effected the throw. So, that's 2 instances where Ambrister interfered with the play. On that alone it could've been ruled as 2 outs. What should've been rules was 1 out on Ambrister at the plate, and Geronimo returned to 1B. Instead, after calling Ambrister out, he allowed Ambrister to get to 2B, all because he was probably pissed about the way Fisk was yelling at him, because that's how baseball umpires are. He wouldn't even look over to the 1B umpire who had clearly signaled that this occurred as a fair ball. Furthermore, the Ump's lack of interest in anything the 1B umpire had to say is despicable, as well. There's a reason there are more umpires out there is because of the vantage point and field of vision that adds additional insight into plays. A key aspect of this play is whether it occurred in fair territory or not, and from that angle he would need to check with the 1B umpire to be sure of it. He did not. No wonder these guys don't want replays to be able to take away their authority to screw over games like this.

[@alexgary4124]

There's so much wrong here with your analysis that it's pointless to go over all of it. The first base ump, in fact all of the umpires, agreed with Barnett. When a batter hits the ball fair they have a right to run to first base. In this case, Fisk acted more quickly than Armbrister, but it was still pretty instantaneous. Having watched this again, it's clear now Armbrister is doing pretty much everything he can to not interfere.

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

@@alexgary4124 Exactly. The idea that it was nefarious scheming and not just instinct is pretty dubious.

[@gregoryevans8179]

They got tangled up, but Fisk made a bad throw. If he makes a good throw it’s an easy DP.

[@comediantomryan]

Trea Turner is the new Ed Armbrister. Game 6. Nats vs. Astros. 10/29/19

[@ericradford2142]

The Nationals won Game 6 so that call was a moot point.

[@snowbeard54]

This still makes sick.

[@adamgordon6435]

I used to feel that way, but 2004, 2007, 2013 & 2018 have soothed that.

[@JohnnyTyrone77]

Armbrister starts running after the bunt.Stops.Starts running again... No replay back then...Offensive interference.

[@jamesguy27]

In all the confusion, Lynn threw the runner out at third, but everybody was wrapped up with the interference. Nobody protested.

[@StevenBohnel]

I'd like another couple looks at that, but at quick glance you might be right, it was close

[@guidodandthedowopers]

would this play been reviewable today???

[@DNSKansas]

Yes

[@privatepenguin3137]

Another part of the play that would've been reviewable...is Geronimo at 3rd. He beat the throw...then was tagged...then bounced off the bag with the tag still applied. That would have been easily reviewed and reversed in today's game.

[@habyss]

The umpire got death threats after this and blamed Tony Kubek.

[@RoadRacerGT]

If Armbrister ever tries to block my grocery cart I'll knock him down.

[@SuperIliad]

What batter would stand still and just allow a catcher to make his throw? Anyone would break to first. I watched this game live and saw the umpire's ruling as correct. With this said, it's no longer safe for me to visit my beloved Boston.

[@craigallmendinger8404]

That couldn’t be more obvious as an obstruction. The idea of even trying to argue that it was not is preposterous.

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@joeoconnor8106]

The Empire wearing Number 17 looks like Mel Brooks

[@MikeBroderick33]

I’m a lifelong Sox fan and was watching this when I was 11. I thought for sure it was interference on Armbrister then, but watching it again I don’t think so. However, as a couple of people have mentioned I wonder if Geronimo was out at third? It’s hard to tell, but Rico Petrocelli points back toward third. Was it just to ask for time, or to say Geronimo was out?

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

Geronimo was safe

[@TheNorgate]

The problem is that the batter stopped running. If he had just continued to run to first he would not have been at fault. Stopping as he did prevented Fisk from making the throw. The batter should have been called out and the runner should have been returned to first base.

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

If he had just mowed Fisk down (by not stopping) THEN you'd be happy to not call interference? Yeah, that makes sense.

[@46singledad46]

Worst umpire call of all time.

[@rickhaavisto9023]

Man, you shouldn’t judge any officiating ever again...

[@deckbose]

Let me guess. Typical jealous Boston hater. You lost all credibility with your "Lester game 1 doctoring the ball" comment. No Cardinal player, coach or executive complained, no umpire saw a thing out of the ordinary, but a Single A Cardinal pitcher pipes up and you instantly jump in line. Your bias makes you unworthy of comment here.

[@joshualiberty1543]

So if you bunt you can't run to first, gotta let the catcher have the right away

[@johndever8481]

I was there. Fisk and Armbruster have paths. Fisk, being smart, cut in front of Armbruster and went call begging. Armbruster hesitated, which he is allowed to do. Look where the ball is. Fisk should, as coached from kid ball up, ran thru the vacated batters box. Great no call.

[@susanmeinhardt5557]

The interference rule is very clear. If Armbrister impedes 1% of Fisk's ability to make the play it's interference. This isn't like a block/charge call in basketball.

[@johndever8481]

@@susanmeinhardt5557 it may now be interpreted that way; however in 1975 it was not. I was actively umpiring during that time and stayed up to speed on rules and interpretations. In short, Fisk was given a chance to make the play when Armbruster hesitates, but he opts for the plea beg and Blue was not buying it.

[@Matthew_Ellis]

@@susanmeinhardt5557 You are wrong. The rule is: Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment which reads "When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called." The call was and remains correct.

[@johndever8481]

Curt Gowdy as a rules interpreter is only surpassed by Joe Buck. Rule biik is a mystery to them.

[@amberpuga7322]

This is why I think Tony Kubeck was the best as a baseball expert -

[@ruthlesshack1279]

Sorry, but Kubek was a Red Sox Homer and he was Wrong.

[@DNSKansas]

@@ruthlesshack1279 How could Kubek be a Red Sox homer considering he played for the Yankees? Your logic is just stupid.

[@carlfro62]

Thanks. I had to take a look after last night's poor judgment call. Boooooo!!

[@wadeboyful]

Saw it live I was ten

[@WillieDuitt1]

He not only stopped in Fisk's way he dropped the bat right at his feet, I think it was for sure interference but Fisk made an awful throw. It looks like Armbruster did it all on purpose to advance the runner.

[@timothyfenton2619]

he did not even make a direct move towards first he delayed...how is that not interference

[@Greasyspleen]

Maybe baseball should just allow runners to intentionally block and swat at the ball. It would simplify the rules so much. And A-Rod would love it. LOL

[@roseandbench]

Umpire was correct.

[@leonardshevlin7260]

Joe Garagiola instinctively too Fisk's side, it feels to me.

[@rbbrbb4715]

Looks more like Fisk was impeding the path of the runner

[@imola23]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf

[@kellynestegard5208]

Looks like Armbrister step out of box when he squares.

[@luckybestwash]

Need Jomboy to read Stello's lips

[@Eiuol81853]

First, this was interference and Armbrister should have been called out. Secondly, with no one out why the hell would Fisk risk throwing that ball high when you have a guy behind you can tag to shorten the inning? The umps made the wrong call here but made the right call last night. But neither call would have happened if it weren't for two errant throws.

[@instantreactions21]

this is the right call, the batter even stopped to let the catcher make the play, hell the catcher should have turned around and just tagged the batter out. But he was more interested in throwing the guy advancing 2nd out

[@patrickgray5633]

No it isn't & I'm a Reds fan that was interference in my opinion he made contact with him in fair territory.

[@bobmoslow9554]

If that's not interference, what is?

[@tunnel1]

By the way , Fisk throws ball into center field . Lynn throws ball to third , umpire misses call there . He’s out

[@peterrand1484]

I can't speak about the rule in place in 1975, but this would definitely be interference today. Also, to say the play to 2nd was not impacted? Clearly it was. Fisk had to step around Armbrister, then make a difficult barehanded play and because of the lost time (even though it was milliseconds, this is valuable time when a play like this is developing) he had to rush the throw to 2nd. This is why the rule is in the book (again, in today's book). The fielder has a right to field the ball, and the batter-runner interfered with that play.

[@rickhaavisto9023]

No, it wouldn’t be interference today... This is MLB’s example of a play between Batter Runner and Catcher that is neither obstruction or interference...

[@peterrand1484]

@@rickhaavisto9023 MLB 6.03(a)(3) seems clear. 6.03 Batter Illegal Action (a) A batter is out for illegal action when: (3) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base. Is there an exception to this rule that would make Armbrister's play not interference, by today's rules?

[@rickhaavisto9023]

@@peterrand1484 Here is a nifty video covering a similar event in the 2020 postseason kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4DRn4CXhJaHgtk

[@rickhaavisto9023]

@@peterrand1484 Specifically, the rule that this video falls under would be MLB 6.01(a)(10) Comment - “When a catcher and a batter-runner heading to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called…”

[@peterrand1484]

@@rickhaavisto9023 The remainder of that comment clarifies what constitutes obstruction, so it appears it is more about the actions of the fielder, not the B/R. Even if interpreted literally, I don't think Armbrister's actions constituted "heading to first base". He stepped out of the box, then stopped, which hindered Fisk. If he had bunted and run directly toward first when the contact occurred, I think your rule might apply, although it still would have been a judgement call and I think the umpire might still have ruled on interference. Good example of where the rules can't cover every situation, especially in real time when things happen quickly.

[@freefireshorts8680]

Armbrister had nothing to do with Fisk poor throw, Fisk is a cry baby and I score it an E-2

[@kevinhickey5632]

he should be out because his right foot is completely out of the batters box when he bunts the ball.

[@alanhess9306]

Looks to me like part of his foot was on the line.

[@willdrucker4291]

Sheesh...Larry Barnett can lay claim to two of the worst call in WS history...this and his infamous out call against Bernie Carbo in the 70 Series....where Ellie Hendricks tags a sliding Carbo at home plate....WITH AN EMPTY GLOVE!!!

[@JamsEnterprises]

The umpire for the 1970 Bernie Carbo play was Ken Burkhart.

[@gooberclown]

​@@JamsEnterprises😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

[@charleswinokoor6023]

Not a good call.

[@pgraybengal]

Reds fan here that was total interference!!!

[@DAK4Blizzard]

Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment [Rule 7.09( j) Comment]: Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment [Rule 7.09( j) Comment]: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. If there was intent, this wouldn't apply. However, the batter-runner ducked and backed off the catcher when contact was made. Then the question becomes, was the initial contact intentional? The batter bunted and instinctively ran to 1B, just as any batter would do as soon as they bunt. He wasn't checking to see where the catcher was and looking to impede the catcher's path to the ball. In fact, watch the video again. Look how quickly the batter backs away from the catcher as soon as contact is made. As soon as he makes contact, within a fraction of a second he stops and begins going backwards.

[@davethompson3140]

DAK4Blizzard / your reading the modern rulebook, not the one printed for 1975!!!

[@t21229513]

Exactly. A fan. Not an official.

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

Totally no, Patrick Gray

[@blutoblutarsky6529]

This is why Bart Giamatti suspended Pete Rose

[@instantreactions21]

and the catcher does get in the way of the batter, but he still ran around him