A Series of Thoughts on the Call
The final play of Game 3 of the World Series has generated some very strong opinions. In the poll just below this (that includes a GIF of the play), most of you have sided with the umpires, believing that the obstruction call on Will Middlebrooks was correct. Rather than offer a strong opinion of my own, I’d like to simply offer some connected thoughts that have come from watching the play a few hundred times.
The rule, as written, seems pretty clear in addressing plays very similar to this. I don’t know how the umpires, guided by the rulebook as written, could have called anything else.
The rule, as written, is problematic. Will Middlebrooks simply had no way to not interfere, given that definition of interference, so once he dove to try and catch Saltalamacchia’s errant throw, his fate was sealed.
The leg kick issue seems to be a sideshow. Craig’s path to home plate included running directly through Middlebrooks, and had Middlebrooks laid perfectly still, Craig still seemingly would have tripped. The leg kick doesn’t appear to be the cause of the trip, to me, but instead, the fact that Middlebrooks body was laying in the path Craig chose to run.
Craig’s path took him to the very edge of the defined baseline. His feet actually touch the grass, and I think one could make a reasonable case that he was attempting to run in an area that is not generally considered to be the domain of the runner.
That was one pretty fantastic play by Dustin Pedroia.
If you believe in karma, the Red Sox kind of deserve this, since Shane Victorino has mastered turning pitches barely inside into free bases. Live by the technicality of the rulebook, die by the technicality of the rulebook.
This ending overshadows a series of pretty brutal decisions by John Farrell. I’m sure he doesn’t feel very lucky at the moment, but had this game not ended in controversy, a huge part of the postgame conversation would have centered on the Brandon Workman/Koji Uehara decision tree.
The more I watch the play, the less of a problem I have with the call, and the less I like how the rule is written. It seems like a fielder should be given a reasonable opportunity to attempt to not interfere. One could argue whether or not Middlebrooks was trying to trip Craig or stand up to get back into fielding position, but we probably shouldn’t have a rule that penalizes defenders for not having the ability to teleport instantaneously off the ground.
Anyone who says baseball is boring is nuts. That game was amazing.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
The result of the play is caused by a poor decision and a bad throw. This just happened to be one of the possible outcomes. And it happened.
I think the determination by the umpire that obstruction occurred – whether one likes it – is the action that directly led to the result. While there’s validity in evaluating the wisdom of some decisions made by the players on defense, this view is a red herring. Stick to analyzing the incident in a vacuum.
I think Will Middlebrooks’ obstructing Allen Craig’s path to the plate is the action that directly led to the result, personally.
Seeing as how his obstructing Craig was caused by a poor decision and a bad throw, I think Migs is perfectly reasonable.
In my opinion it was CLEARLY obstruction.
To all the guys claiming it is a bad rule, becuase Middlebrooks wasn’t in any way able to not obstruct him after missing the ball.
What about swinging strikes? The batter gets a penalty for doing everything he could and there was no way he could have hit the ball. Still he gets penalized.
A batter hitting a deep fly ball with an outfielder waiting under it. What should the batter do for not being called out? Hit a Home Run every time?
Exact same thing here. It doesn’t matter at all if Middlebrooks had no chance of avoiding this obstruction. This argument could be taken so far as to say a Home Run should not count as a hit because the OF had no chance to catch the ball. Think about a towering drive with no fans directly behind the fence and the OF already there long before the ball arrives.
I think you get my point… so DEFINATELY OBSTRUCTION! There really isn’t even room for argument…
I wouldn’t assume anyone gets whatever point you’re trying to make. For your analogies to work, the pitcher would have to be debited when the batter swung and missed, and the hitter would bear responsibility when the fielder couldn’t catch a ball hit over the fence. As one option, the rules CLEARLY allowed Joyce to call obstruction. He wasn’t mandated to do so, but hisi call is justifiable. However, it’s absurd to unconditionally attribute all liability to the fielder. The rule needs to be fixed in the off-season. For now, it’s tough luck for the Red Sox.
my point is just that there are a lot of examples where a player on offense or defense is not able to be in any other position at point X but gets penalized for that.
so if the obstruction rules have to be fixed… what should have been called then?
Would you penalize Craig for not making it to home plate in time because somebody not in the act of fielding the ball clearly obstructed his way to home plate?
I mean i don’t even get why people argue that call…
It does not matter why Middlebrooks lay there. And it matters next to nothing that he couldn’t be in any other position. It jut matters that he was obstructing a straight basepath for Craig.
and baseball is full of these situations where it is not a player’s fault for being in such situation in which he gets penalized for being.
i am saying it is not Middlebrooks fault for being in that position. BUT I am also saying that the rule is fine like it is and needn’t be fixed!
“so if the obstruction rules have to be fixed… what should have been called then?”
In that same situation where the rule was hypothetically modified, the umpire wouldn’t call anything and the runner would advance at his own peril. My biggest beef with the rule isn’t that the fielder can be cited for obstruction simply for being in the wrong spot, but that the runner isn’t considered responsible to any degree for choosing his base path. I’m not comfortable with the unconditional waiver the rule gives to runners. Just tweak the rule.
When you ask what should have been done, I answered presuming you meant hypothetically. It seems pretty clear Joyce’s ruling was defensible.
It’s not tough luck for the Red Sox. The only reason Craig was out at the plate was his tripping over WMB due to WMB’s obstructing his path to the plate.
The rule is interpreted correctly as written. However, they should specifically put intent in the rule and give the umpires power to unilaterally decide how much intent is in there. A player can’t be blamed for a bad baseball play. It’s not like Salty did an intentionally bad throw to try and obstruct the runner. People get in the way of each other during the course of play and players should take that into account during the play. Craig went regardless of tripping over WMB. He wasn’t thinking, “If I get close enough to being home, that’s good enough.” He was thinking that he has to touch home plate. Many of the players probably thought intent was part of the obstruction rule and that’s why there was so much confusion.
For those saying WMB intended to impede, that’s just hogwash. He dove. The bottom of his legs flipped up. He looked for the ball. Tried to get on his knees, but Craig came tripping over him in the buttocks area causing him to go prone again, but causing the bottom of his legs to go up. If anything the bottom of his legs came up in the act of trying to get his midsection back down when he felt the pressure from Craig and his hand pushing him down to regain his balance. WMB had no idea he was part of Craig’s newly established baseline until he felt the pressure on his back. Then he went down in the area on which he felt the pressure. No intent to obstruct.
“JOE TORRE: You remember a few years ago I think Tejada ran into a fielder and then stopped running, and even though he was pointing back, he’s obstructed, but he stopped running, so he was out.” source: mlb.com
so there is absolutely no point in saying Craig went home anyway. even as he felt being obstructed. he HAD to continue running!
“A player can’t be blamed for a bad baseball play.” On the list of things that a baseball player can and ought to be blamed for – shouldn’t a bad baseball play be near the top?
People with a rooting interest naturally see this as a “what was poor widdle WMB supposed to do?” issue. You can almost see the tears between the words. But his feelings aren’t the focus of the rule. The Red Sox threw the ball into left field, and a run was supposed to score. If a fielder isn’t making a play, he has no legal right to be in the way – and there’s nothing ambiguous about it.
This.
“For those saying WMB intended to impede, that’s just hogwash. He dove. The bottom of his legs flipped up. He looked for the ball. Tried to get on his knees, but Craig came tripping over him in the buttocks area causing him to go prone again, but causing the bottom of his legs to go up. If anything the bottom of his legs came up in the act of trying to get his midsection back down when he felt the pressure from Craig and his hand pushing him down to regain his balance. WMB had no idea he was part of Craig’s newly established baseline until he felt the pressure on his back. Then he went down in the area on which he felt the pressure. No intent to obstruct.”
The above is so absurdly presumptuous that Red Sox fanatic bias is written all over it. You have no idea what WM’s intention was there.
As to the DC claim that the rule is faulty, the obstruction of base runners rule is part of the game. Proposing that to be changed seems pretty dramatic imo. Speculating whether or not WM was *able* to get out of the base path and avoid obstruction seems beside the point. Blocking the base path is either obstruction or it isn’t. As others have said, Middlebrooks was put in that “obstructable position” as a result of a poor throw from Salty. Under normal circumstances (without the throwing error), WM would not have been unable to get out of the base path had Craig taken a turn toward home plate.
Suggesting to alter the obstruction rule seems like a pretty dramatic overreaction to a play that rarely happens and was the residue of an error in the first place, so the Sox really have no place to hide from blame even if criticizing the rule book seems like a convenient scapegoat.
Intent matters not. A good throw would not have obstructed the runner. A bad throw led directly to the obstruction. Bad throws lead to bad things for the defense. This game can be as simple as throw and catch if you let it.
As a side not, if you do want to discuss intention — ‘The kick’ as Dave mentions (but shrugs off) was a clear attempt to obstruct the runner once Middlebrooks hit the ground. The intention was to slow Craig down.
The issue in my mind isn’t the rule. It is that Craig, after sliding into third, arose with both his feet on the bag, and a clear path to home. Watch it in slo mo. While watching the ball behind him, he started to step toward the pitcher’s mound on the second base side and stumbled before he had ANY contact with Middlebrooks, clearly disoriented and not in control of his body. He pushed off with his hand from Middlebrooks before his left foot finally dragged over his torso. Middlebrooks never blocked his path from third to home. He only blocked his path from third to the pitcher’s mound. Should not have been obstruction.
Craig was between 2nd and 3rd, so he should have been granted third base due to the interference and not home.
Huh? Craig slide into 3b and was safe on that play, he got up and tripped over Middlebrook while trying to go home. Maybe watch the replay…
Craig takes a step towards 2nd base after getting up. He was disoriented. That’s why when he trips he lands on the grass instead of the basepath. Middlebrooks wasn’t between 3rd base and home plate.
Craig was facing home and running towards home before the tripping occurs. Get real dude.
Craig was simply trying to get up after the slide. He has a bad ankle so probably is not that agile, and his speed was such he did not slide past the bag, so he would obviously get up on the inside part of the bag since that’s where his bodies center of gravity lies. Unfortunately, WMB was also laying on the same side and took more time to get up than a 90 yo.
WMB’s leg kick suggests he intended to obstruct Craig, even though intent is not required. Never seen anyone except an infant try to get up from a prone position by kicking their feet up, and he never did get up until the play at the plate was made
Go ahead and explain how Craig’s hands are on Middlebrooks’ back when Middlebrooks’ feet were to the right of 3rd base if Craig went straight from 3rd to home without moving back towards 2nd.
Were they Go-Go-Gadget arms? Of course he moved towards 2nd base before going home.
That response was for wh11
Have you seen a slide, before, Hendu? Have you seen a player slide in a baseball game, and if so, have you ever seen a player get up from a slide and attempt to continue running? Your challenge to wh11 makes me think that you have not.
What?
He tripped on Middlebrooks after he touched 3rd and was running home.
I know that the Red Sox will deny it as will Middlebrooks, but I’m stunned so many people seem to think that Middlebrooks wasn’t trying to impede Craig on his run home. I don’t begrudge him for it — his only hope was to obstruct and hope the ump doesn’t call it. But methinks there was clear intent there.
If intent doesn’t matter, which Joyce claimed was his view and which Joe Torre’s real-time fumbling through the rulebook established, then it really doesn’t matter why Middlebrooks’ legs came up, does it? If MLB doesn’t make attempts in the off-season to modify and spell out liability for both the runner and fielder, then they will have learned nothing and deserve all future grief they get on this sort of situation. It’s silly to so rigidly attribute all liability to the fielder and none to the runner. It seems that most of the issues can be resolved by modifying the rule to ensure that a runner cab be held liable, e.g., called out, should he initiate contact when he has a reasonable base path to the subsequent base available to him. We’re talking about this because Craig, unintentionally or otherwise, established a basepath over Middlebrooks instead of behind him on the foul line. Again, the problem is the disproportionate liability in the rulebook. Fix it in the winter, MLB.
Well said. Middlebrooks legs clearly both flip up. Why would you put your feet in the air if you are trying to get up?
Everyone go lie down on the ground right now and try to get up. If you attempt to pull yourself to you knees first, your feet might pop up a couple inches off the ground, but there is no way that your shin should be perpendicular to the ground.
Dave: Middlebrooks could have tackled Craig or died instantly when the ball passed him and it wouldn’t have mattered. The rule assumes the fielder acts deliberately to obstruct the runner by attributing all responsibility and liability to the fielder. You and Eli are presumptuously creating a red herring by trying to pass moral judgment on the fielder. Stop. The rule could care less about morality.
@Pet Charles, the rule doesn’t “assume the fielder acts deliberately to obstruct the runner by attributing all responsibility and liability to the fielder.”
Intent is totally irrelevant. It’s not a punishment to the fielder. Craig would have advanced safely if Middlebrooks hadn’t been there, so they awarded him the base.
It’s really that simple.
Quality trolling, this. Arrive early, make an obviously incorrect declaration, sit back, wait for all of the BadReps to come flowing in.
He actually already had safely reached third base, so since he was between 2nd and 3rd when obstruction was called, the only logical thought process would be to award him second base.
And, this, is low quality trolling. Notice the lack of negative votes.
Yes, I agree. It was anticipatory interference.
While it’s understanding that you want to give the fielder the benefit of the doubt, I don’t see how you could ever have a run not count because a fielder is literally LAYING in the runner’s path to home plate. It’s not Craig’s fault that Boston threw the ball into left fielder causing Middlebrook to have to lay out and block the runner. The benefit of the doubt has to go to runner. If Middlebrook isn’t there, Craig score easily.
Agreed, the shortest path for Craig to score was to run straight through Middlebrooks. If there was a rule that said Craig had to avoid Middlebrooks at all costs, he runs the risk of being thrown out because he has to take an extra step or two to get around him.
An extra step straight down the foul line? The rules need to attribute some degree of liability to the runner, because the runner currently has carte blanche to do whatever he wishes. It’s a matter for the off-season. Joyce’s call is defensible but highlights some shortcomings in the rule.
This is accounted for in the umpire’s discretion, even if indirectly. Yes the runner can do whatever he wants without technically being penalized, but the umpire has the discretion to decide whether he would have been safe or not. If the runner has a more direct path to the base than through the fielder, he has no incentive to cause contact–he should simply take the base on his own. The only time the runner would have incentive to initiate contact (as opposed to avoiding it) would be if he doesn’t think he would be safe and wants the give the umpire a chance to get the call wrong (Shane Victorino did this once when he was on the Phillies to Jose Reyes and the Mets on a rundown play and the umpire DID get the call wrong–Shane would have been out regardless of the contact, but the umpire awarded him the base anyway). The thing is, that’s now a symmetrical dilemma. The fielder has the same type of optionality. If he thinks the only chance to prevent the runner from being safe is by initiating contact and hoping the umpire gets the dilemma wrong, that’s no different than the baserunner doing it. The reason the burden is put on the fielder is because he inherently has incentive to initiate contact without the rule. The fielder only has that incentive if the rule is strictly binary, but it’s not–it’s up to the umpire’s discretion regarding how the play would have unfolded without contact.
Incentive does not equal intent. Just because Craig tripped over Middlebrooks doesn’t mean the latter intended that outcome. Conversely, by creating a rule that places all liability on one party (the fielder), the runner conceivably has no incentive to avoid the fielder, since any and all contact is the responsibility of the fielder. The umps and Torre were clear that intent did not matter. At no time did they imply Joyce had the discretion to make no call, as silly as that sounds.
Joyce’s determination was justifiable, but the distribution of liability in the rule is awful. That’s basically it.
well pet actually no… not really.
there already is another rule caled interference, where the baserunner takes all the blame.
so it is kind of the inverse of obstruction.
in a situation where a runner has to run to the next base in a force play and a defensive player happens to be in the act of fielding a ball (which he is no longer when he dove and missed the ball) straight in his basepath the runner HAS to get around the fielder or wait or whatever he can not interfering with the fielder. even yelling is considered interfering with the fielder.
Interference is not the opposite of Obstruction. The runner has a right to access the base. Interference requires intent by the runner. Read §7.08(b).
@Pet Charles
That’s half correct. The obstruction “call” itself happens regardless of intent, this is true. However, the base is only awarded to the runner if the obstruction caused something to happen differently than it would have happened had there been no obstruction. If it wasn’t a close play at home, the umpire still has the discretion to rule the baserunner out following the obstruction call. The obstruction call does not automatically award the baserunner the base. Thus the baserunner’s incentive, if he has a clear path to the base, is to take that path rather than initiate contact.
“‘If what you saw happened tonight and he’s out by 20 feet, then the umpire has to determine that if the obstruction had not occurred, he would have been out, OK? But since it was right there, a bang-bang play, obviously that obstruction definitely had something to do with it,’ Hirschbeck said.”
That was the explanation given after the game.
Exactly. The runner would have scored except for the fact that the fielder was in his way. In that situation, the rule seems fair, and it’s a lot easier to stomach the game ending on that call.
If the run scored on an interference call where the runner was so late to the plate that he probably would have been out even if he had a clear path… That would be a whole ‘nother story. It’d be technically right, but a hell of an unfair way for a World Series game to end.
The fielder should be able to remain in the last position they were in after attempting to field the ball without penalty.
It. Is. Not. A. Penalty.
Why is this hard to understand?
Seriously, it’s like Sox fans are desperate to prove that they can be every bit as dumb and entitled as Yankees fans.
Hey, I’m a Red Sox fan and I 100% agree with the call and with the rule. It’s logical, it’s fair, it’s clear. The runner has the right to a clear path around the bases.
If a fielder had a heart attack and fell dead in the basepath and impeded the runner, that’s interference too. It’s not about the fielder. It’s about the fact that the RUNNER SHOULDN’T BE PENALIZED.
Seriously Lester?! Redsox fans have always been the dumbest and most entitled. …it is as if you are new to baseball…
Oh, I’m a Yankees fan, Yirmiyahu.
To me, this is key. If we want to absolve Middlebrooks, then put the blame on Salty for throwing the ball into LF and leaving Middlebrooks in a position where he couldn’t NOT obstruct Craig.
“If you believe in karma, the Red Sox kind of deserve this, since Shane Victorino has mastered turning pitches barely inside into free bases”
Huh? The Beltran action can’t be ignored in this statement, eh?
Are you referring to Beltran being barely grazed by a pitch on the protective gear on his right forearm? He stood as still as a statue and moved his arm ever so slightly right into the pitch.
He got his base and happened to score a run.
Yes, if you are going to invoke karma, they are on the same wavelength. And to ignore one while recalling the other is questionable.
As the person who took a beating for pointing out the strike zone in the Tigers-Red Sox Game 6, this is sweet sweet delicious karma.
“Red Sox should have played better if they didn’t want it to come down to an umps call.”
I mean, if you watched the Tigers series and looked back at the gameday call you’d see the Red Sox got called for more strikes on balls than the Tigers…so when Tigers fans cherry pick one game of the series yeah, they looked like sore losers. What’s the point again here?
maybe because the red sox never swung the bat and took a bazillion pitches?
go look again, you will find it was basically even til game 6, when red sox got 80+% of the bad calls go their way.
delicious delicious karma.
Doesn’t the “likely” in the 7.06 comment provide wiggle room for this call? Like, in a case where the fielder couldn’t possibly get out of the way without definitely obstructing the runner, you don’t make the obstruction call? ‘Cause had Middlebrooks moved to get out of the way: that’s a no doubt obstruction.
Regardless of whether Middlebrooks could or could not move out of the way, if you’re not going to call obstruction on a play where the fielder trips a runner who otherwise would have scored easily on a horrible overthrow, then you might as well not have an obstruction rule on the books.
The runner does not “trip” a fielder when the fielder topples over on a routine, legal slide.
Yes he does. Inadverdently or not, he was lying there on the basepath.
If he did not want to be called for obstruction, he should either have caught the ball or fielded it in such a way that he would not be obstructing the runner if he failed to catch the ball.
He was lying in the basepath between 3rd and 2nd, not the basepath between 3rd and home. He did attempt to field the ball in such a way and it didn’t matter because the runner decided to take a sketchy route towards home.
Middlebrooks dove for an errant throw and put himself in the way of the runner. What do you not understand?
@Walkoffblast
The problem with this claim is that it makes it seem that somehow what Craig did was intentional, which doesn’t pass the sniff test. The play was fairly close even with the trip. Without the trip, he’s easily safe. He had no incentive to initiate contact there. The odds that the umpire gets the call wrong or doesn’t call it are much higher than the odds that he fails to score on a clean 90 foot sprint after the ball got past Middlebrooks.
Er, no. Intent does not matter. You would think that’s pretty clear from the rulebook. If a fielder lays on a basepath and obstructs a runner, it’s obstruction.
I’m not talking about intent. I’m talking about it being physically impossible for him to have gotten out of the way. I’m saying a situation like this is why the rule book says this is “likely” obstruction, rather than saying it just is obstruction.
Once Middlebrook does not catch the ball and he impedes the path of the baserunner, it is irrelevant whether it is physically impossible for him to have gotten out of the way. He’s still in the way. Again, it may be a lousy rule, but, like the Tuck Rule, it is what it is.
OK, being physically impossible for him to get out of the way does not matter. If the fielder did not want to be called for obstruction he should have either
1. caught the ball
2. fielded in a way that if he did fall, he would not be obstructing a runner.
It’s like a pass interference call. You could have an example where a defender tries to swat the ball away but misses, and then runs in to the receiver before the ball arrives in the receiver’s hands. The defender could not physically avoid the receiver after he launched himself to swat the ball away and missed. He would be called for pass interference (rightly) regardless.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the fielder’s ability to get out of the way. It’s a bright line rule for a reason, the fielder has no right to be in the runner’s path and has a duty to get himself out of the runner’s path instantly. I think the “very likely” language refers too whether or not the obstruction kept the runner from advancing. If the obstruction was harmless and does not prevent the runner from advancing, then he is not awarded any additional base for some minor interference.
Raise your hand if you’re a law student…
You can argue as to whether or not this type of play should be obstruction, but it clearly is under the current set of rules. No blame should go to the umpires. If anyone wants to be mad, be mad at MLB.
This is an eminently sane, unclouded response to the play. I’m a Cardinals fan and as soon as I saw the replays I emailed a whole slew of fellow Cardinals fans claiming it was NOT obstruction. Then I read the rule. And saw the replay dozens of times. Absolutely no doubt Joyce made the right call. It’s lousy that it happened b/c no one likes games to end that way, and yet to not call obstruction there would’ve been an even worse injustice. (Btw, the luckiest guy around might be Saltalamacchia – poor decision, game-ruining throw, and yet all anyone is talking about is Jim Joyce.)
Yah, it’s kind of a play where you wish they could just reset at 3B and continue the game. Middlebrooks didn’t have much opportunity to move after fielding, Craig was taking a weird route to home, with the grace of a one-legged emu. You get to see an exciting throw at home plate! And are told its results don’t matter anyway. It’s one of the ugliest plays I’ve seen to end a game.
Unfortunately, there’s no: “reset at 3B” option. Either it was going to be a run or an out. Of those, the run was probably more appropriate. While Craig certainly deserves his share of the blame for being the LGP (Least Graceful Player) today, nearly any player in the league would score on an overthrow like that.
Uh, no. If they’re going to do a reset, then they should reset the whole at bat. Molina at 3rd, Craig at 2nd. Even then, it’s unfair for the Cards because if Craig wasn’t impeded, he would have scored given it was a bang-bang play even with the impediment.
And no, Craig didn’t deserve that LGP title he’s given, whatever that means. He has an injured foot and why he’s only in a pinch-hit duty.
How would you rewrite the rule that still provides incentive for the fielder to get out of the way?
With the availablity of hindsight, modify the language describing establishment of the base path more strictly. Willingly or otherwise, Craig had a straight line path to home if he had turned the other direction. He’s not willfully choosing that path but reacting. Then again, so is Middlebrooks. In an athletic competition, incidental contact occurs. Here, the ability in the rule for the runner to establish his base path wherever he wishes should be more restricted in the off-season. That’s what I’d do, to answer your question.
Heres some insight.
Lay in the prone position.
Stand up.
Do your legs do what Middlebrooks legs did?
No. Because you were standing up, and middlebrooks was trying to atone for being a horrible third-baseman and slow the runner. Go listen to the Red Sox manager and David Ortiz talk about the call. Then go watch the play again. Then go back to the whiners. Then come back to reality. Man if this was pure incidental contact I’d have some compassion, but Middlebrooks literally puts both feet in the air while trying to “stand up”. Come the fuck on.
You want to give the fielder incentive to get out of the way?
How about this
In a world series game tied in the ninth inning the Boston Red Sox Third baseman could not catch a ball 6 feet away from him then put both of his feet in the air as the Cardinal runner was heading home. As a result, the Cardinals won the game.
Theres some fucking incentive not to be a bitch.
You aren’t a good person.
I don’t understand why anyone could argue that the play wasn’t obstruction. Did Middlebrooks get in the way and cause Craig to be thrown out at home? Almost assuredly. So how can anything other than obstruction be called there? There are plenty of plays where players didn’t intend something to happen – Carlos Martinez didn’t intend to hit Victorino in the 8th inning but he was still awarded 1st base.
He is so slow he pretty much has to run on contact. Pedroia made a pretty nice play.
Cardinal are one of the worst baserunning teams I have seen in quite awhile. Hard for them to score runs especially as they seem to have litte HR power and their hitters like to swing at balls out of the zone, sometimes around the eyes
The 2013 Cardinals had the highest batting average with runners in scoring position of any team ever. They have stalled in the post season but to say they are poor baserunners based on one play is ridiculous.
Meant to say “they are poor bsserunners, and their hitters swing at anything” it’s late.
Agreed. The Cardinals are actually an excellent baserunning team. See their astonishingly great baserunning performance in Game 6 of the NLCS (I lost count of how many extra bases they racked up). They are not a very *fast* team, and they don’t have a ton of home run power either. But they’re good at making contact and at taking the extra base whenever possible, which is why they managed to lead the NL in runs scored by more than 75 runs. Just because they have a lot of slow runners, that doesn’t mean they don’t make the right decisions on the base paths. Not always, obviously. No team is perfect. But I’ve generally been very impressed with their baserunning.
they were 17th in BsR with -0.9 on the season. Perhaps they are smart enough on the bases to make up for having minimal speed, but they are hardly “excellent”
@ jomba:
the cardinals are actually at +3.9 in UBR which only accounts taking the extra base and smart baserunning. the number you are refering to is BsR which also takes into account SB attempts in which the cards were awful.
the Red Sox are at -0.9 btw and 17th compared to the Cardinals at 10th best in the big leagues
…but does Middlbrook not have a right to go after the ball immediately after it got by him as well as Craig has to run home?
He does, but he doesn’t have the right to be obstructing a runner while doing so. Otherwise, a pitcher could take out a runner going between 1st and 2nd on the excuse that he went to go chasing after a ball rattling around out in the outfield.
There are two plausible rationales, assuming intent does not matter:
1. Craig contributed to the obstruction: To say his path to the plate was unorthodox would be an understatement. He definitely stepped back toward 2B a bit (I think to turn and see where the ball was) and ended up in a place where his “most direct path to home” was well inside the baseline. I’ve seen a lot of runners go to the plate. This may be about the farthest I can remember someone being in the baseline when they start out. Or, in other words, he got obstructed because his baserunning was already quite weird.
2. Middlebrooks was still “in the act of fielding.” It’s not like he laid out there forever. The ball went by, he got stepped on in a movement that might have involved him trying to get up. It’s maybe a second on the ground. In most cases, a fielder does not instantaneously become an obstruction the second he bobbles a ball or misses a catch (otherwise the 1B and 3B would be obstructing on nearly every throw they don’t catch). The ump gets sole discretion over how long this “act” lasts. If we had 5 umps, we might have 5 different opinions over the length of this.
With that said, it is Jim Joyce, which gives him extra credit on this matter. I don’t like the call (I don’t think it makes anyone all that happy), but I don’t think there was a better call available in the book for it. It’s also not like this call lost the game for the Red Sox, at least. The bad throw lost the game. This just saved Craig from nearly giving it back with some really awkward baserunning.
This is a good post, and the last part is especially spot on.
The rule couldn’t be clearer that he was not in the act of fielding. It expressly covers this situation and says that Middlebrooks was not.
No it doesn’t; you’re a dunce. The excerpt you have in mind references a batted ball, not a thrown one.
“After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the ?act of fielding? the ball.”
Please point out where it references a batted ball rather than a thrown one, NS.
Reading Comprehension; it’s not just a section of the SAT.
I’m sure nobody intends to have anything self-defeating happen at any time. Your comfort with the strict definition of permissible runner-fielder actions applied broadly concerns me. I see the problem with the lack of liability to the runner in the rule. Joyce’s ruling is defensible, but the shortcomings of the rule now that a situation has played out in front of us are clear: too much liability on the fielder, too little on the runner. Tweak the rule in the off-season, MLB.
No. Just no.
What should a runner do??? run circles around fielders who “dove” for balls in close situations and missed the ball?
have you ever played ball???
get effin real, man. just don’t be a sore loser
I am still baffled by how no one has mentioned Molina’s ridiculous decision to run home on that play.
“Run” is not how I’d describe that.
Maybe a brisk walk?
Not at all a ridiculous decision. He has to make a split second decision on contact there whether to go or not based on the trajectory/speed of the contact and the game situation. Given that the next batter was Kozma and the fact that Pedroia had to make a pretty great stop to even field the ball, I think he made the right decision. He forced Pedroia to make a tough play. The fact that Pedroia executed so perfectly doesn’t make the decision by Molina a bad one.
How is it ridiculous? If he doesn’t it’s 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs. If he does and the play goes smoothly it’s 1st and 3rd with 2 outs. Only the runner on 3rd matters. He absolutely should go on contact in that situation as the only possible detriment is having a force out at 2nd if he’s thrown out. By going he A) had a chance of being safe on a bad throw B) has the opportunity to make something happen on a botched play. B happened and the Cardinals won. I’d be curious to hear why you think it was the wrong move.
Because his high school team didn’t have a contact play, maybe?
I tried to explain to a group of what I thought were intelligent people that if you have the walk-off-winning run on third, and there is also a runner on second, there is virtually no situation in which the runner on third should not try to score. The only situation would be where the fielder could get the runner out going home, but not the runner going to first, which seems incredibly unlikely in a MLB game. You give it a go, and you still have a runner on 3rd. I guess if there are 0 outs, you risk the next player grounding into a double play, but with 1 out there is no reason at all not to do this (I was explaining this in context of coed, not-very-competitive slow pitch softball, so the idea of a team turning a double play was ludicrous).
I don’t think he needs a nigh probability of being safe at all to make that a correct decision being the only run that matters.
wow good point
Should read “high” and that there will still be a runner at third regardless.
Running on contact. Forcing Pedroia to make a play. If he throws Yadi out, it should be 1st and 3rd. If Yadi doesn’t run, he throws out Jay, and it’s 2nd and 3rd. Not a big difference when you need one run. I think it’s the right move.
Yup, running on contact is a guarantee. Force them to make a play, Boston made a great play but got greedy and it lost them the game.
It’s pretty similar to the 6th inning of the ALCS — no outs, V-Mart on 1st, Fielder at 3rd, Pedroia fields Peralta’s ground ball… now Fielder has to decide whether to stay (and allow for an out at 1st base) or make something happen.
He was running on contact in the ninth inning of a tied world series game with 1 out.
What would you prefer your guy on third to do, coach?
This play is just as fair or unfair as a runner being out when struck by a line-drive when he’s standing on a base. He’s not done anything wrong, but he’s also impeded the other team from doing something it is allowed to do without impediment. You can’t penalize a team for the other team being in the way. Had Middlebrooks not been there, Craig easily would have scored, clearly. The rule book is written differently from other sports: You are expected not to be in the way; get in the way and pay the consequences, regardless of intent. Such is the way of baseball in all its black-and-whiteness, and that is not going to change.
The more I watch the GIF, the more it looks like Craig actually plays a part in taking out Middlebrooks’ foot and causing his fall. Does anyone else see this, or am I just talking out of my ass?
Not talking out of your ass at all. Craig does take out Middlebrooks’ foot – but merely b/c he’s in the act of a routine, legal slide. This is where we might want to tweak the wording of the rule, but as it stands that’s not relevant to the obstruction call.
You’re just talking out your arse. Unless by taking out you mean telepathically inciting Middlebrooks to raise his legs, because then you’d be spot on.
Ohp. You meant Middlebrooks’ fall. My apologies. Disregard my asinine snark.
The fact that people are dissecting the GIFs of this play like the Zapruder film and are making “discoveries” that might suggest it was a different interpretation of the call actually gives me more respect for the umps and the hundreds of in-the-moment calls they make in the game. They’re pretty fucking good.
“Back, and to the left.”
I don’t know. I fall on the other side of that logic decision tree. I think if it’s that close that you have to let the gameplay decide the outcome and not a call that will eventually be debatable.
Except the call isn’t debatable. The rule is quite clear.
I hate this point of view. Obstruction is a rule for a reason; not calling it is allowing an unfair advantage. When some kind of penalty occurs, NOT calling it is affecting the game as much as calling it.
Anyway, gameplay did decide it. Salty made a dumb and awful throw that led to Middlebrooks obstructing a runner.
The opposite end of the spectrum:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/poll-obstruction-or-smart-defense/
Think of it this way, Dave: if we take your advice and make a play like that NOT obstruction (because the fielder had no chance to get out of the way), then what’s to stop a fielder from making a diving attempt **at a ball that he knows he has little chance of actually fielding,** knowing that even if he misses the ball he could benefit by–accidentally, of course–obstructing the runner’s progress?
ANY time that a fielder hinders a runner while not actually fielding a ball, it needs to be called obstruction. Otherwise, players WILL find ways to use the loophole to an unfair advantage, leaving the umpires in the impossible position of not only having to determine what the fielder “could” have done, but also having to determine if the fielder was trying to game the system in doing what he did.
Both the call AND the rule are correct.
I agree, but it cuts both ways. If the ball had just dribbled a short ways from third, Craig could have gone, and been thrown out by a larger margin than he actually was–but allowed to score because of the obstruction angle.
Er, no, the home place umpire has to judge that Craig would have been able to score without the obstruction.
If the runner had been out by so much that he would have been out even if he had not been tripped up (in the judgement of the umpire), he would not have been awarded home.
Joe Torre and company talked about this point on the MLB Network.
And you think that’s an easier call for an ump than deciding whether a fielder intentionally flopped?
Remember, a fielder generally has to obstruct first, before the runner is going, whereas the runner can decide after the fielder is down and the ball has gone astray. Middlebrooks was not in position to game the rule, because he didn’t know the ball would be thrown away until he was already down trying to catch it. Whereas Craig knew the ball was going up the line when he decided to run.
So Middlebrooks should not be have put himself in a situation where he could obstruct a runner (in other words, he should have caught the ball).
Again, intent doesn’t matter. The reason for the rule is because otherwise, fielders could dive for a ball they could not reach and obstruct a runner on the excuse that they couldn’t get out of the way. I definitely think it’s harder to judge whether a fielder intentionally tried to obstruct rather than whether the obstruction was the difference between being safe or out.
Andy, what does the fielder intentionally flopping have to do with anything?
Intent is irrelevant.
I’ll repeat it: Intent is irrelevant.
Also at Andy, the answer is yes. It is much easier to look at what happened and sort of internally calculate about how much time a player lost due to obstruction than it is to determine the motives of the obstructing player, which aren’t even clear with ultra-slow motion replay.
Case in point, this freaking play. It is painfully obvious that Craig scores if no obstruction happens. Do we really know whether or not Middlebrooks was trying to obstruct?
I think some people are just speaking without knowing the full rule. So many people are missing the point that there is a judgment call in this about what would happen without the obstruction. This fact eviscerates all of the otherwise logical arguments against the call.
The counter to this is that as currently written, the rule encourages the runner to try and find contact as a safety net. If Craig runs directly from 3rd to home without veering off towards 2nd base, Middlebrooks isn’t in the way. Now you’ve put the onus on the fielder to account for every possible path the runner might decide to take.
It’s why Fielder lunged at Bogaerts and ended up doing that belly flop into 3rd base during the ALCS. If he had managed to make contact, he’d be legally entitled to 3rd base even though he initiated the contact.
The runner has to remain on the basepaths, but yes, indeed, the runner is entitled to all spaces on the basepath free of interference by any fielders without the ball.
If a fielder without the ball doesn’t want to be called for obstruction, the fielder should either catch the ball or not end up obstructing a runner.
But Craigs center of gravity was on the 2B side of 3B after the slide so logically thats where he gets up.
I have seen infants get up quicker than WMB did. He was still lying there when the play was made at the plate.
Well, Craig did push down on his back while trying to get his balance (before the trip), then landed on him, so I’m not sure how he should have gotten up during that time. The whole thing took about one second.
As for the other part, it’s simply not true. The video shows Middlebrooks standing up with his hands in the air when the tag is made at home because he thinks they just turned a double play.
Why would Craig TRY to make contact there, though? There’s no benefit to him from that, because if he doesn’t run into Middlebrooks, he would have scored the old-fashioned way.
Or are you saying he should have gone out of his baseline–which is established not as three feet inside the line but rather the direct line between himself and the plate, essentially–in order to avoid the contact? Thus increasing the chance that he’ll be thrown out because–look at that!–Middlebrooks conveniently happened to be in his way?
The onus is on the fielder not to be in the runner’s way once he’s no longer actively making a play on the ball. Period, end of discussion. He (in conjunction with his teammates, in this case) should have either made the play cleanly or not put himself in a position where there’s a potential to block a runner. If that happens to be hard, or even virtually impossible, for him to do, tough [cookies]. Nobody ever said baseball was easy.
Obstruction isn’t a penalty, it’s restorative justice. In this case, especially, the call was not only correct by the letter of the law, it was entirely JUST. Had Middlebrooks not put himself into a position where he could block Craig, Craig would have scored. That Middlebrooks felt he had to put himself into such a position in the first place just goes back to my previous point about how allowing that would introduce an untenable, albeit implicit, judgment of intent into the rule.
But in this case, Middlebrooks didn’t put himself in that position. He’s cleared out of the path between 3rd base and home plate. Craig changes the path by taking a step and a half towards 2nd base, thus putting Middlebrooks between himself and home plate.
Imagine Craig went 5 feet further towards 2nd base and Middlebrooks was standing on the grass. By the letter of the rule (and the application in this case), Craig could run into him on the grass and be granted interference.
I’m not saying Craig meant to create the contact, but that he was responsible for making the contact. He tripped over Middlebrooks not because Middlebrooks did anything, but because he took a poor route to the plate.
This is excellently worded – thank you. This really is one of those things where the more you think about it the more obvious it is the umps got it right, and that seems to be the virtually unanimous consensus from experts (even Keith Law has conceded that Joyce was correct).
I should clarify that flyerdog’s point is excellently worded. Hendu, “poor route” has nothing to do with it – the question is whether it was a legal route, and it most assuredly was.
Well the topic was how the rule should be worded, not how it is worded. Middlebrooks was not in the runner’s path until the runner changed his path. I think a rule that absolves the runner of all responsibility to not create this issue is a poor one.
Middlebrooks was not between 3rd base and home plate. Craig ran a poor route home by stepping back towards 2nd, putting Middlebrooks between himself and home plate, and a laid out Middlebrooks pays the price for it. A poor rule.
Hendu,
Uh? So if Craig took a poor route, what is the optimal route that you would have take him take to get to home as fast as possible? From what I saw, he took a straight line from where he got up to home. How is that a poor route?
In any case, the baserunner is entitled to go however he wants between bases so long a he stays within 3 feet of the baseline. Fielders without the ball should not impede however he wants to go.
How is this a poor rule? It’s black and white. There’s virtually no ambiguity there (unlike one about intent). If you want to minimize controversy, you’d use this rule (rather than one based on intent, which would generate controversy regardless of how it is called).
Hendu, he was between *Craig* and the plate. That’s the relevant issue, not whether he was between third and home.
Exactly. I like the objectivity of this rule, not having to judge intent.
First, you come off as extremely biased. It hurts your argument. Second, you leave no room for the fielder to make legitimate plays on the ball in the vicinity of the runner. Why does the field of play exist to serve the runners only? Shouldn’t fielders have equal rights to play the game? You argue eloquently but myopically. Please force yourself to think through the opposite argument.
Exactly – it would be too easy to game it.
It’s like someon above asking “does Middlebrooks have a right to run through him if he had gotten up and went after the ball”.. which is a clear and resounding “
Oops – please ignore, browser doing strange things.
Telo:
Fielders have a right to make plays on the ball. However, they have to actually catch a ball if they don’t want to run the risk of obstruction.
Again, it’s like a pass interference call. You could have an example where a defender tries to swat the ball away but misses, and then runs in to the receiver before the ball arrives in the receiver’s hands. The defender could not physically avoid the receiver after he launched himself to swat the ball away and missed. He would be called for pass interference (rightly) regardless. The defender can not use the excuse that he shouldn’t be flagged because he was intending to swat, not intending to run in the receiver. He should be called for pass interference regardless.
The issue is that the opposite argument is just factually incorrect.
There is no ambiguity here.
The rule seems fair to me. But if you disagree, how would you rewrite the rule to make it fairer? Include intent as an element? That wouldn’t be good because it’s difficult to apply subjective standards consistently.
I agree with John. The rule as it is is fine. It should not matter that it’s unfair that a fielder who tries for the ball gets called for obstruction even if that’s not his intent if he indeed does obstruct the baserunner. If he doesn’t want to be called for obstruction, he should catch the ball he’s trying to field (or dive in a way where he doesn’t end up obstructing a baserunner).
Craig’s path took him to the very edge of the defined baseline.
The baseline is only relevant when running to first base. All other times, the path from the runner to the base is what matters, which may or may not be on the baseline.
Yes – as long as the runner is not more than 3 feet outside the base LINE, he can take whatever path he wants, and the rule is written so that fielders must honor and stay clear of this base path
The three feet is for when a fielder possess the ball, then the fielder has three feet from his path. Otherwise, would you call runners out for wide turns when rounding bases?
* or runner *
You are correct – my bad.
It matters if a fielder with the ball is attempting to tag the runner in question.
I know this definitely falls into the category of “technicality”, but should any light be shed on the fact that Joyce never made the “proper obstruction call”? Technically the umpire is supposed to make a “time” signal over his head as soon as the obstruction occurs. To the best of my knowledge, no such signal is ever given.
Like I said, it’s a technicality and does nothing to change the fact as to whether or not it was the right call. I just find it interesting nonetheless.
I think they wanted to see how the play played out. If Craig was safe at home the obstruction call would have been moot and there would be no controversy. Technicalities only work on arbitration for PED cases. Like you say, time out or no timeout, nothing changes.
Allowing the play to play out also gave the umps a better feel as to whether the obstruction prevented Craig from being safe. Due to the closeness of the play at the plate, it was easy to rule that Craig should be awarded home plate. If he was out by 15 ft the umps may have called obstruction and also called Craig out at home.
I think pft is correct here. Interestingly I think if obstruction had occuredfrom 2nd to 3rd, then Craig would be called out at home on advancing at his own risk.
Rule 7.06 states:
“The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction.”
I don’t think it’s all that clear that the closeness of the play at home mattered, despite what both Hirschbeck and Torre said after the game. Based on precedent, merely running into a fielder that doesn’t have the ball gives the runner a free base, even if he would have been tagged out either way. Just like this play, which resulted in the runner being awarded home: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1186510/mesoraclol_medium.gif
Miguel Tejada was once called out even though there was obstruction. See this recap (in particular the “turning point” in the sidebar) of Game 3 of the ALDS: http://espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=231004102
Thats 7.06 (a). The applicable section is 7.06 (b)
I am amazed by how many smart people apparently want to rewrite the rule to add intent. This is the thoughtlessness of the moment, not a serious consideration of what that would entail. Would this really be neater, right now, tonight, if we were arguing intent (regardless of which way the umps had called it)?
The virtue of a regardless of intent rule is not just that it makes the correct call clear (though that is a virtue), but that it focuses us on the only question that matters: given the situation of the ball and the situation of the runner, should the runner score? Because if you’re saying that the rule should be different, you’re saying that because Middlebrooks couldn’t avoid obstructing, Craig shouldn’t have scored. Wwll, what’s the argument that he shouldn’t have scored? Saltalamacchia makes a boneheaded throw, it gets by Middlebrooks, and the only preventing Craig from scoring easily is a down fielder. The rule doesn’t blame the fielder for being down. It simply allows a runner that should score to score.
I didn’t realize this was the only situation in which the rule will matter. In the future, we should want the rules to continue to improve if we spot out flaws. In this case, I agree that the correct end result happened. And I think the rule should be looked at to decide if a change will continue to give the best chance of the correct end result happening.
I am not sure people are taking as much an issue with the intent part of it as much as the basepath part of it when talking about unavoidable.
It doesn’t matter whether it was avoidable or not, though. Like Kenny said: “you’re saying that because Middlebrooks couldn’t avoid obstructing, Craig shouldn’t have scored,” and that’s wrong.
Agree, the rule need not be changed. Think of it this way. We know this situation will happen sometimes and the fielder did nothing wrong. Yet, neither did the runner, so when it happens, the runner isn’t “awarded” anything. But he was slowed by the body littering the basepath. The play continues and he’s judged safe or out according to what would have happened had he not been slowed by it. The only umpires judgement is a) how much he was slowed and b) if that amount changed the outcome of the play. In this case it clearly did, since it was a very close play before adjusted for the OBS.
Well, I would argue that the runner did stuff wrong, but legally. Stepping a bit toward the wrong base is legal (heck, running all the way back to 2B would be legal), but it’s still wrong for your own interests. Likewise, tripping over a fielder is not exactly an example of Rickey Henderson gracefulness. But it’s not like he benefited from the trip: all he did was risk not scoring and had to rely on an obstruction call (which seldom occurs) to actually pull it off. So I’d say that Craig did a lot wrong. He was just lucky that the obstruction call was actually made, which saved his bacon.
He would have been easily safe if WMB hadn’t been in his way. His being obstructed is the only reason people are dissecting his baserunning.
The rule can open up a can of worms.
The exact same thing happened in the first inning of a high school game I was umpiring and we called obstruction.
Then the opposing manager ordered his players to FORCE obstruction whenever possible… do you have any idea how many times a baserunner can have his path go through a fielder and still technically be in the basepath?
It was a nightmare. Obstruction was called 2 more times and by the 3rd inning the fielders on both teams were having to sprint away from the baserunners to avoid “interfering” and we then informed both teams that we would no longer be calling obstruction unless it was clear that the fielder was intentionally hindering the baserunner. Both managers filed protests at that point and that game was the reason I ended up retiring from umpiring at the end of the season.
Anyway, the rule is ripe for manipulation if a team chooses, but I can’t imagine that MLB players and umps would ever act as poorly as those high school teams did.
Yes this can happen. Baseball is scripted in the rulebook as such a gentleman’s game lol. As if things like this shouldn’t happen. As well as leaning into pitches for HBP’s, and spiking a second baseman on a double play, etc… Every so often people can try to exploit things like these but be warned that it would be in bad taste and not assuredly without consequence of some sort eventually.
In basketball when fouls were invented, with a penalty of 2 unguarded shots, I highly doubt they had the “Hack-a-Shaq” in mind as a strategy.
I dunno, sounds like you were being liberal in your interpretation of the “basepath” then. Pretty sure you’re not allowed to zig-zag even if you are still staying within what’s normally considered the basepath.
I’ve never umpired at any level, and I understand why you didn’t do what I am going to suggest, but if coaches are instructing their players to intentionally initiate contact with their opponents they should have been ejected. In the MLB rulebook there is a clause that allows the umpire to basically do whatever they want.
9.01
(b) Each umpire is the representative of the league and of professional baseball, and is authorized and required to enforce all of these rules. Each umpire has authority to order a player, coach, manager or club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything which affects the administering of these rules, and to enforce the prescribed penalties.
(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language,…
This doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult thing to deal with. Obstruction only awards a base that the baserunner would presumably have reached anyway. The obstruction-forcers wouldn’t seem to be gaining any advantage. In fact, they’d be running the risk that you, the umpire, could judge that they wouldn’t have reached the base without obstruction, and call them out.
It also seems like you could use some sort of discretion to rule the tactic unsportsmanlike and simply eject the players and managers who employ it.
On another blog, a commentator said this, which I think is absolutely correct: “The rule is a corrective. Neither the fielder nor his team is punished for the obstruction. The umpire merely awards the base that the runner would have reached safely but for the obstruction.” That is why I think Dave is just dead wrong here. The runner is supposed to be able to run unimpeded by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is in the act of fielding the ball, period. If he is is impeded in any way by a fielder, he is supposed to be awarded the base. That this happened to decide a World Series game is not just irrelevant, it’s what the rule is supposed to make happen. If obstruction is not called, Craig is out at the plate when he quite clearly would have been safe had it not been called. That would have been a wrong result in the third inning of a Mariner-Astros game in April and it would have been the wrong result here.
I meant “not occurred” not “not been called.”
If only Miguel Tejada knew the damn obstruction rule ten years ago.
To me it looks like Middlebrooks is bending his knees to consciously pull his legs out of what he assumes to be Craig’s way, as if he’s aware of what could be called obstruction. Craig, disoriented, looks over the wrong shoulder to find the ball, and in the process, “rounds” the bag to the wrong side, which consequently is where Middlebrooks has just pulled his legs to try NOT to obstruct Craig.
TO summarize, a bunch of stuff happened, none of it with an intent to bend the rules.
It was an incredibly tough position for the umpire. If this was football, and a flag was thrown, the refs would have been lambasted for not “letting them play”.
Cards win because their player is clumsy, is what it boils down to for me. The umpire really had no other choice.
Given his slide in the video, would you look over your right shoulder for a ball you believe to be in left field?
No. I would look at my 3B coach. I mean, we pay the guy, he’s probably shouting at me, and he hasn’t just slid into a base so he could see the ball a lot better.
If, for some odd reason, he was not shouting at me, I would step over 3B and check over my right shoulder. I sure as heck wouldn’t be doing anything that brought me farther from home plate.
Look at his slide in the video. He pops his slide with his shoulders almost squared towards 2nd base. Looking over your right shoulder in that instance takes you towards the dugout.
“Cards win because their player is clumsy”
It’s actually the opposite. Cards *almost didn’t* win (on that play) because their player was clumsy. 99.9% of runners would have scored on that play straight out. A solid 50% would have scored even after tripping over Middlebrooks, maybe more. I assume he was a bit better before the foot thing, but Craig looks atrocious on the basepaths. And, by the stats, he was 3rd-worst this year in runs lost on them (-5.9). Last year, -2.5. Which is not horrible, but by no means good.
But really, the only people who might not have scored on that were guys like V-Mart, Konerko, and other guys whose legs are almost entirely shot. That’s usually an automatic score.
Dave, the rulebook is fine. I don’t see how you can have a problem with this rule. With no obstruction (who cares about intent), Craig should score easily on that play. Why are we worrying at all about whether Middlebrooks (or any fielder in the future) should be given the benefit of the doubt? The ball got by him, and the point of the rule is to ensure that the end result of the play is what would have happened if there was no obstruction. Its as simple as that, and I for one am glad such a rule exists.
Who Cares? Fuck Boston.
Catchers sure seem to make a lot of bad throws. I wonder if instead of throwing to 3rd base, where the result of a bad throw is often a free run, they should just sit on their hands. Or does the occasional out negate the occasional run?
Salty just makes terrible decisions.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the rule. The fielder *did* have a reasonable chance to not interfere. By stepping off the bag and fielding the ball cleanly. He chose to dive instead. It’s his own fault for A) diving B) failing to actually field the ball and C) being in Craig’s way when he tried to advance to the plate. Craig clearly would have scored easily if he wasn’t obstructed. Teams should not be rewarded (or their opponents penalized) for making bad defensive plays. Absolutely the right rule and call.
There’s basically three things that should be considered here. Everything else is a distraction from what really matters:
1. Is the fielder *not* in possession of/fielding the ball?
2. Does the fielder impede the runner’s progress?
3. Would the runner have scored absent the obstruction?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes” (and they are), then obstruction absolutely *must* be called.
Also, the only thing that was really up to interpretation here was if Craig would have scored in time if he hadn’t of stumbled over Middlebrook. Joyce had already called obstruction; it was now up to the home plate umpire on if Craig gets the run or not. Clearly, Craig would have scored if he wasn’t obstructed.
This is why the home plate umpire waited to call a run.
I get what Dave is saying, but I like the objectivity of the rule. Obviously it makes it easier to call, but I think it also rewards well-executed baseball.
Dave was reflecting on the end situation (Middlebrooks lying on the ground) and saying that it doesn’t seem right that at that point he will inevitably be called for obstruction. This seems fair to me, as multiple events occurred that led to him being in that position that we all agree should not be rewarded. Among other things, Middlebrooks didn’t demonstrate good balance, he didn’t position himself well, and there was an errant throw. If we always deduce that a fielder laying directly in the basepath could be attributed to some poorly executed baseball, then it makes sense to hold them accountable by awarding obstruction to any baserunner who happens to cross them.
Changing the rule would reward/incentivize sloppy baseball which we certainly don’t want. It would also make calls like this totally subjective and increase players risk of injury.
As for all the pathetically lame attempts to argue away the correctness of the call, I’d wager a large sum that few, if any, of the apologists have ever read a rule book, much less the baseball one.
This was a classic, obvious case of obstruction. If you asked 100 umpires or rules interpreters about this play, you’d get unanimous agreement. I actually yelled “obstruction” while I was watching live.
More to the point, or specifically to Cameron’s point of complaining about the rule itself, I can only surmise he wants some form of “intent” written into it. Anyone familiar with sports rules books knows that intent is very rarely mentioned in rules books, for two very important reasons.
First, none of us are mind-readers (though some corrupt Harford County judges think they are) so officiating intent is essentially impossible.
Second, and perhaps most important, players, like most of us in the real world (lawyers, judges and Wall Street thieves excepted), must take responsibility for their ACTIONS, regardless of their intent.
(To use a hypothetical example), Dave, you may not have intended to slam into that car stopped in front of you at the stop light, but whatever action led you to that result, you are responsible for it. As you should be. To put it another way, the football player intended to grab the ball carrier’s jersey, but he missed and grabbed and pulled the facemask instead. The action is penalized, not the intent. The player is responsible for making a legal tackle, just as Dave is responsible for operating his car in a safe manner.
And Will Middlebrooks is responsible for getting out of the way of baserunners when he’s not making a play. He didn’t, and the umpires made an absolutely correct call.
Agree 100 percent with this.
If an NFL coach managed the Red Sox, he would have baserunners trip over fallen fielders at every chance.
If a coach wanted to play devil’s advocate, couldn’t every runner at first trip over the player holding him on?
I hope that rule is rewritten because the umps are forced to make a call that leads to yesterday’s ending.
I don’t understand your point, at all. How do you trip over the first baseman when he is holding on a runner? He isn’t in the baseline. Can you coach your players to trip over fielders intentionally? Of course you can. Your success rate will be near 0%. Your points are moot.
Context: 1) I’m a Sox fan. 2) The key mistake was throwing to third in the first place. With Koji on the mound, the right play was to hold the ball and let him pitch to the next batter with two out.
That said, the only thing I found questionable about the call was whether Craig would have scored without the obstruction. Nava got the ball in really quickly from LF, and Craig was out by 3-5 feet. By the rule book, there was clearly obstruction.
I don’t think it would have been close. I mean, he *fell down.* That cost him probably 10 feet at least.
+1 just for the last sentence. Can’t wait for game 4..
Middlebrooks has to catch that ball. Craig is safe by a small margin regardless of a perfect throw.
Even if obstruction is called in this situation (which I believe was the right call) Craig still has to touch home plate, which he never did.
Matt Holliday told me I didn’t have to.
Good luck getting that enforced.
Incorrect. This came up earlier this year, in conjunction with the Gomez/McCann silliness.
There have been plenty of runs scored in the great history of baseball where the runner didn’t touch home, I’ve seen this myth before, it’s borderline rabid on the internet, and I have no idea why.
Because people are stupid.
I agree with Dave’s analysis, including how many mistakes the Red Sox made, especially by the manager. John Farrell is letting his gut make the decisions, following the Grady Little school of managing.
Now while I agree that the way the rule is written, obstruction is the right call, it’d be easier to accept if obstruction was called consistently. Catchers regularly block home plate to obstruct runners coming home. Some say this is okay because the catcher is in the process of catching the ball, but they intentionally obstruct home plate before the throw reaches home. If it’s okay for the catcher to block home, it would have been fine for Middlebrooks to block third base while waiting to receive the throw from home.
DIFFERENT.
CATCHER HAS BALL, IS ATTEMPTING TO APPLY A TAG.
MIDDLEBROOKS WAS LAYIGN ON THE GROUND AND PUT HIS FEET IN THE AIR, MANY SECONDS AFTER THE BALL WAS HEADED TO LEFT FIELD.
THE CATCHER ISN’T CALLED FOR OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE HE IS DOING SOMETHING, THE SHITTY THIRD BASEMAN IS, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF CATCHING THE BALL, HE LAYED ON THE GROUND, ON HIS STOMACH, AND PUT HIS FEET IN THE AIR.
TRY IT.
LAY PRONE.
STAND UP.
DID YOUR FEET GO IN THE AIR?
THANKS.
HEY EVERYBODY.
LAY IN THE PRONE POSITION.
NOW TRY TO STAND UP.
DID YOU PUT YOUR FEET INTO THE AIR?
NO, YOU DIDN’T, BECAUSE THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF STANDING UP.
REDSOX ARE FUCKING SCRUBS – BATTING THE SET UP MAN IN THE NINTH, THROWING ERROR IN THE NINTH, A-ROD ESQUE SLAPPING OF GLOVE THIRD BASEMAN.
SERIES OVER.
ROFL.
It is irrelevant because any and all outcomes result in either STL or BOS winning the WS. If this doesn’t anger you, you don’t like baseball.
I don’t mind STL, actually. I don’t like them, but it’s better than the Red Sox winning.
Personally my only problem with the rule stems from the interpretation of who has right to that space. The fielder is given first priority so long as he is making a play on the ball. In that sense he is entitled to that space during the play. After the ball passes him he should make every effort to yield the space to the runner, but given a reasonable amount of time to do so. This is similar to a jump shooter being fouled after releasing the ball when someone undercuts his landing zone. Just because he has released the ball does not mean his right to that space is gone. Middlebrooks dive was part of the play on the ball, and even as the ball passes him and he lay there for that split second, that was a result of a play on the ball. There was no time to yield the position that he was entitled to because of a play on the ball. Granted under the current wording of the rule it is up to the umpire to decide what constitutes the beginning and end of the play on the ball. So in the end I don’t have a huge problem with the final decision Joyce made, but I feel like some clarification/revision of the rule should at least be considered. Because as the umpires put it, there was nothing Middlebrooks could have done to prevent it once he dove.
Do you see the unstated assumption in your position? It is that unless Middlebrooks could have gotten out of the way, the Red Sox should get the benefit of the obstruction. The simple answer is that baseball has considered and rejected that result.
No, I’m really saying Craig should incur the consequences of tripping rather than Middlebrooks getting the benefit of an unintentional and questionable out of the base path obstruction.
He would have scored if he hadn’t tripped.
He wouldn’t have tripped if Middlebrooks hadn’t been in his way.
Therefore, he would have scored if Middlebrooks hadn’t been in his way.
That’s really all you need to know.
The benefit of obstruction is already granted by the current rule in that the initial priority of the space is given to the fielder. My argument is that because baseball has deemed the fielder to have rights to the space first they must also provide him reasonable time to yield the space. To do so otherwise puts the player in a no win scenario. Basically, baseball has defined that the fielder’s need comes before the runner when making a play on the ball. And in this case, Middlebrooks need for that space comes first and he should benefit from the intiation of the play until time enough has passed for him to move.
If Craig only trips over Middlebrooks as he is diving, is that obstruction? I would say no. The debate stems from the fact that Craig trips again immediately after the ball has passed. And that is where baseball needs to clearly define the beginning and end of a players “play on the ball.” I would say its until the fielder is given time to move, while others may feel it’s as soon as the ball passes him. That is what baseball should consider during the offseason.
I’m actually really surprised Dave Cameron has a problem with this rule. This is how the rules of baseball work, heck, this is how the rules of every sport work. Some rules are made so that playing the game as prescribed is possible, and base path obstruction is one such rule. Why in the world would it matter whether the fielder intended to obstruct the path, as a player he needs to have an intent to not get into a situation where he obstructs the base path.
When a runner knocks over a fielder as he’s making a play it’s still called interference even if the runner had his head turned the wrong way when he did it. When a pitcher slips with the ball and beans a guy, he still gets a base, even though it was an accident. And there are countless examples you could use in other sports, this isn’t just baseball 101, it’s sports 101. You can’t try to smack a pass out of the air in football, miss and whack the quarterback in the face or else it’s a penalty, doesn’t matter how big of an accident it was. You can’t try to block a punt, miss and run through the kicker, even if it’s a total accident that you never intended, still a penalty.
And another thing, this rule won’t change. I don’t care if a game is decided by it in every World Series from now till the crack of doom, it won’t change. You can’t obstruct the base path. They’re not adding a caveat that you can’t unless you’re super sorry you did it because you totally didn’t mean to. And it’s silly to think that’s going to happen, or even should happen.
I agree with almost everything you wrote, but I take issue with the two statements above. My understanding of the spirit of the obstruction rule is this: the baserunner has the right at all times to run unimpeded. There are only two exceptions that supersede this right: if the fielder blocking the path a) has the ball or b) is in the act of fielding the ball. It is and should be the defense’s responsibility at all times to ensure the fielders are not unfairly obstructing the runner, intentionally or not. Because it is his right to run freely.
Certainly there might not have been anything Will Middlebrooks could have done to avoid obstruction once he dove for the ball and missed. But by diving for the ball, Middlebrooks risked obstructing Allen Craig if he failed to come up with it. Craig should not have to deal with a fielder in his basepath just because the catcher made a bad throw and the fielder tried to catch it. It’s the defense’s problem, not the runner’s.
For these reasons, I think the obstruction rule is perfect as it stands, at least in this regard. Now, onto the balk rule… 🙂
Given this rule, why is blocking the plate or blocking second base legal?
Read the rule:
“OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.”
Now, tell me why blocking the plate or blocking second base is legal.