obstruction rule

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zeitgeist49. Show zeitgeist49's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    The fact that the umps failed to even conference on this play seems revealing to me. How could all these umps be in such instant agreement on such a bang bang play, which by the way totally and instantly decides the outcome of GAME 3 ?  And, of course, the ESPN pundits all say the politically correct thing to avoid additional controversy. This specific type of play, in which the fielder was on the ground and not in the basepath, probably happens once in a generation. And the OBSTRUCTION RULE should be tweaked to consider whether the fielder was within the basepath. And also in such a crucial game ending play - at the very least - there should be instant replay. The game of baseball is evolving and more and more instant replay is being used. It's certainly hard to imagine, but someday the game may not require umps. On a final note - If the roles were reversed and a Red Sox runner had been ruled as being interfered with, and as a result the Sox were awarded the win, the Cards and their fans would be furious.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:

    This is my question.  Craig takes a step to the inside of the third base line and is well inside the baseline when he contacts Middlebrooks.  Does that not matter?



    The baseline is defined by where the runner starts and then a straight line is drawn to the next base. It doesn't change the fact that it was a bad call given the circumstances. Can't cry over spilt milk. Too bad it had to end that way because it was game that could have been one for the ages regardless of the team that won. That was decided by an umpire making a call that he could have easily let go...but didn't. 

    Lets not forgat that it was a poor throw to third by Salty that set up the follies to follow. The Sox have now given them two games due to poor defense trying to make plays when prudence suggest that they eat the ball and go after the next hitter...More troubling to me is that the Cardinals are beating our best guys coming in from the pen with a huge assist from our fielders...

    The goods news is that was then, turn the page, today is another day and a win today makes it a series and more important we take back homefiield. this series is far from over...

    Go Sox! 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from charliedarling. Show charliedarling's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Whether the umpire was right or not, how about some better fielding by the Sox catcher and third baseman (as has been mentioned)?

    That throw needs to be made much better and it should also have been caught.

    Sox defense and Breslow have not been very good yet in the WS, and they are down 2-1 as a result.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from surabaya. Show surabaya's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    They were in agreement because the call was obvious to everyone.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    the umps have to have a ten minute conference to dwell on call that was so obviously wrong yet this game ending call they get out of Dodge like all get out...

     

    btw where is the rule that says flopping like a fish out of water is obstruction? 

     

    george carlin was totally right about baseball....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Most big cities, especially those with MLB teams, send at least one sportswriter to the WS.  Call it a perk.  But it gives us an outsider's view of the call.  And everyone but everyone--not from St Louis and not from Boston--agrees the umpires made the right call. 

    What is most galling to me is few on this site will admit that Middlebrooks, despite his protestation to the contrary, was clearly trying to obstruct the runner.  He stuck his feet in the air, and it was those feet that entangled the baserunner and in turn led to the obstruction call.  That is, he succeeded in what he was trying to do, but that very success led to the call.  Intention is not required for obstruction, but in this case there was a real possibility there would have been no obstruction call if the feet don't go up in the air like that. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tampabostonfan. Show tampabostonfan's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Reading comprehension people.  This is a quote from the rule, and is almost exactly what happened to Middlebrooks last night.

    After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball, and has missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.


    He wasn't on the grass and was right by the base, so, in the base-line.  The issue everyone should have is Salty throwing the ball at all.  He claims he looked up and Craig was only half-way to third.  When he threw it Craig was right on the bag.  Never had chance and should not have been thrown.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam789123. Show jam789123's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Is this "the cardinal way" I've been hearing so much about?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to georom4's comment:

    this was the worst call i ever witnessed...i hope all those umps drop dead tonight




    Watch the Armbrister play from the 75 series.  THAT was a bad call.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaysofYaz. Show DaysofYaz's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    To add even further fuel to the fire, Craig touched third and then made a step back toward second, leaving himself  in the position of having to go over middlebrooks. If he takes a step back toward second after already touching third doesn't he then have to retouch third before heading home? If he did that he would have been passed middlebrooks.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from fl+adam,. Show fl+adam,'s posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    Most big cities, especially those with MLB teams, send at least one sportswriter to the WS.  Call it a perk.  But it gives us an outsider's view of the call.  And everyone but everyone--not from St Louis and not from Boston--agrees the umpires made the right call. 

    What is most galling to me is few on this site will admit that Middlebrooks, despite his protestation to the contrary, was clearly trying to obstruct the runner.  He stuck his feet in the air, and it was those feet that entangled the baserunner and in turn led to the obstruction call.  That is, he succeeded in what he was trying to do, but that very success led to the call.  Intention is not required for obstruction, but in this case there was a real possibility there would have been no obstruction call if the feet don't go up in the air like that. 

     




    Lay face down on the ground.  Now try to get up quick.  You begin by beginning to extend your arms and a little bend in the legs to beging to draw your knees toward your chest while your arms push your upper body towards your butt.

     

    That being said, the problem is the rule.  Once he missed the ball, the rule gives him no "reasonable time" to get out of the way.  If he was on his feet it would not have been an issue, but because he was laying down he was screwed by the rule.  As soon as he went to the ground in the basepath he had no way to comply with the rule.  The rule has to be modified.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from blingblang. Show blingblang's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    As unusual as the call was, after seeing the replays (I went to bed with Sox trailing 2-4 in 7th), seems right call.  Rule doesn't give chance for fielder not having time to move out of way.  The way it is written, it was a bad situation for Sox to get burned.

    Second bad throw in back to back games from home plate (Bres in gm 2, Salty in gm 3) to 3B cost both games.  Not the call, it was the bad throw that got Sox in trouble.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    UNFREAKENBELIEVABLE. AND HE WAS ALREADY DOWN. IT'S NOT LIKE HE GOT DOWN TO OBSTRUCT A GUY NOT IN THE BASEPATH OR WHATEVER.



    I am not arguing the obstruction call but look at the replay slow motion and being a hockey and baseball referee (by the way I am not a Red Sox fan....Expos fan) the runner was clearly out at home plate...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    i wonder if Craig may have thought of going back to the bag?...in the replay it looked to me that by the time he was fully out of his stumble, Nava was already unloading, he had no prayer of being safe...i guess the answer to that only lies in a non-call, which in that case brings that choice into play.. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    The base path from 3rd base to home plate was open.  Middlebrooks was at least a couple feet inside the base path.  Why did the runner chose to run inside the base path over the prone Middlebrooks?  Could the runner have impeded Middlebrooks from trying to get to the ball if it was only a few feet away from him when puching him down trying to run to home?  I guess not.  Looks like just having Middlebrooks being on the ground was enough according to the umpire.  Talk about lack of common sense in that ruling!!

    Cards will take the win any way they can with an ump's help!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    Obstruction

    Obstruction (Rule 7.06) is called when the defense hinders the runner’s ability to run the bases. There are two different applications of the rule. One causes an immediate dead ball and the other is delayed dead. If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, the ball is immediately dead. If no play is being made the ball is delayed dead. A play, for purposes of this rule is when the ball is being thrown, or is in-flight, heading toward the base to which the runner is heading, an attempted tag, or when the runner is caught in a run-down. The rulebook definition is: 

     

     

    A fake tag is considered obstruction. A fake tag is when the fielder is at a base and takes an action that simulates an attempted tag, which causes the runner to slow down or slide. Faking a catch of a ball while not near a base or the basepath, is not a fake tag. 

    The fielder may stand in the basepath without the ball IF the throw is almost to him, and he needs to move there to catch the ball. This is considered “the act of fielding.” However, he may not actually block access to the base until he has possession of the ball, or starts the act of fielding. Until he has possession, or becomes “in the act of fielding” the ball, he must give the runner some way to get to the base.         

    It is never obstruction when the fielder is in the base path while he is attempting to field a batted ball. Obstruction only applies when the fielder is in the path for no reason, or is in the path prior to being in the act of fielding a throw, or does not have possession of the ball. 

    A fielder's "attempt to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction. 

    A fielder is "in the act of fielding" and it is NOT obstruction, if, his block of the base, is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball.

    Separate, discontinuous movement, whose sole purpose is to block the base, is obstruction. 

    As with interference, obstruction is also a tough judgment call. Contact between the runner and fielder is not necessary to meet the definition. If a runner must slow down or alter his path to avoid a fielder who is not in possession of the ball or "in the act of fielding" a throw, he has been obstructed. 

    If no play is being made on the runner at the time he is obstructed, the play continues. “Time” is not called until all play ends. The tough part comes when the play stops. The umpire will award the runner the base to which the umpire believes he would have reached had he not been obstructed. The play ends and “Time” is called, when the obstructed runner is tagged out, or he ceases to continue to advance, or he gets caught in a run-down, or all action ends. At that time, the umpire may, award bases or not, in order to nullify the obstruction. 

    For example: the batter hits a ball in the gap for what looks like an easy double. No play is being made on him. As he rounds first the fielder is in his path and they collide. The batter stops at first. The umpire will award the runner second base, if he believes; the runner was making a legitimate effort to advance to second base and could have made it, had he not been obstructed. The umpire will protect the runner back to first base, if the runner was not making an attempt for second, but the obstruction hindered his ability to get back to first, before being put out. 

    It does not matter where the obstruction occurs. If a runner is obstructed at first base and the umpire believes he could have made it to third base, he will be awarded third. The umpire must be the judge. If, in the umpire's judgment, a runner is slowed down at first base, and the umpire judges that the runner had a chance for a triple, but then is thrown out at third base, the out should be nullified because of the obstruction at first. However, if the runner is obstructed at first base and the umpire believes that only a double is possible, and the runner advances to third and is thrown out; the out would stand. 

    If the runner reaches the base to which the umpire has protected him, and he advances further during the action, and is put out, the out will stand. 

    An immediate dead ball obstruction is called when obstruction occurs while a play is being made on the runner. 

    For example: a runner on first is attempting to reach third on a hit. A fielder obstructs him, between second and third, as the throw from the outfield is heading toward third. This is a play on the runner. The umpire should call "time" when the obstruction occurs and award the runner third base. Another example is a run-down play. It does not matter which way the runner is heading. If he is obstructed while being played upon in a run-down, he is awarded at least one base beyond the last base he held. 

    If a runner is obstructed attempting to get back to first on a pick-off play, the ball is dead and he is awarded second. 

    Here's MLB's obstruction 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.
    Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
    is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the
    ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire
    as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 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. For example: an infielder dives at a
    ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of
    the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner



    by rule i could be(and was) called...FTR imo totally unintentional but still callable....tough way to lose



    Jete if you read more after that the rule also states that the act of fielding the ball can't be over until the fielder has been given a reasonable amount of time to remove himself from the position that fielding the ball it's him in.  WMB had zero time to get out of the baseponly and a clear path existed from third to home and the runner chose to take astep back towards second and actually tripped over his hips.

    In conclusion....it was BS

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaysofYaz. Show DaysofYaz's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    Obstruction

    Obstruction (Rule 7.06) is called when the defense hinders the runner’s ability to run the bases. There are two different applications of the rule. One causes an immediate dead ball and the other is delayed dead. If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, the ball is immediately dead. If no play is being made the ball is delayed dead. A play, for purposes of this rule is when the ball is being thrown, or is in-flight, heading toward the base to which the runner is heading, an attempted tag, or when the runner is caught in a run-down. The rulebook definition is: 

     

     

    A fake tag is considered obstruction. A fake tag is when the fielder is at a base and takes an action that simulates an attempted tag, which causes the runner to slow down or slide. Faking a catch of a ball while not near a base or the basepath, is not a fake tag. 

    The fielder may stand in the basepath without the ball IF the throw is almost to him, and he needs to move there to catch the ball. This is considered “the act of fielding.” However, he may not actually block access to the base until he has possession of the ball, or starts the act of fielding. Until he has possession, or becomes “in the act of fielding” the ball, he must give the runner some way to get to the base.         

    It is never obstruction when the fielder is in the base path while he is attempting to field a batted ball. Obstruction only applies when the fielder is in the path for no reason, or is in the path prior to being in the act of fielding a throw, or does not have possession of the ball. 

    A fielder's "attempt to field" a batted ball ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction. 

    A fielder is "in the act of fielding" and it is NOT obstruction, if, his block of the base, is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball.

    Separate, discontinuous movement, whose sole purpose is to block the base, is obstruction. 

    As with interference, obstruction is also a tough judgment call. Contact between the runner and fielder is not necessary to meet the definition. If a runner must slow down or alter his path to avoid a fielder who is not in possession of the ball or "in the act of fielding" a throw, he has been obstructed. 

    If no play is being made on the runner at the time he is obstructed, the play continues. “Time” is not called until all play ends. The tough part comes when the play stops. The umpire will award the runner the base to which the umpire believes he would have reached had he not been obstructed. The play ends and “Time” is called, when the obstructed runner is tagged out, or he ceases to continue to advance, or he gets caught in a run-down, or all action ends. At that time, the umpire may, award bases or not, in order to nullify the obstruction. 

    For example: the batter hits a ball in the gap for what looks like an easy double. No play is being made on him. As he rounds first the fielder is in his path and they collide. The batter stops at first. The umpire will award the runner second base, if he believes; the runner was making a legitimate effort to advance to second base and could have made it, had he not been obstructed. The umpire will protect the runner back to first base, if the runner was not making an attempt for second, but the obstruction hindered his ability to get back to first, before being put out. 

    It does not matter where the obstruction occurs. If a runner is obstructed at first base and the umpire believes he could have made it to third base, he will be awarded third. The umpire must be the judge. If, in the umpire's judgment, a runner is slowed down at first base, and the umpire judges that the runner had a chance for a triple, but then is thrown out at third base, the out should be nullified because of the obstruction at first. However, if the runner is obstructed at first base and the umpire believes that only a double is possible, and the runner advances to third and is thrown out; the out would stand. 

    If the runner reaches the base to which the umpire has protected him, and he advances further during the action, and is put out, the out will stand. 

    An immediate dead ball obstruction is called when obstruction occurs while a play is being made on the runner. 

    For example: a runner on first is attempting to reach third on a hit. A fielder obstructs him, between second and third, as the throw from the outfield is heading toward third. This is a play on the runner. The umpire should call "time" when the obstruction occurs and award the runner third base. Another example is a run-down play. It does not matter which way the runner is heading. If he is obstructed while being played upon in a run-down, he is awarded at least one base beyond the last base he held. 

    If a runner is obstructed attempting to get back to first on a pick-off play, the ball is dead and he is awarded second. 

    Here's MLB's obstruction 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.
    Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball
    is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the
    ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire
    as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 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. For example: an infielder dives at a
    ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of
    the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner



    by rule i could be(and was) called...FTR imo totally unintentional but still callable....tough way to lose



    Jete if you read more after that the rule also states that the act of fielding the ball can't be over until the fielder has been given a reasonable amount of time to remove himself from the position that fielding the ball it's him in.  WMB had zero time to get out of the baseponly and a clear path existed from third to home and the runner chose to take astep back towards second and actually tripped over his hips.

    In conclusion....it was BS



    I agree,  total BS. If he has to have time to remove himself it was obstruction but it was craig doing the obstructing.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Shouldn't Craig have been required to re-touch third base and run down the baseline ?  He was on the second base side of the bag when he tripped over Middlebrooks.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    The rule will have be addressed with more clarification, during the offseason. This is why the last play of the game should be allowed to be reviewed, with replay. More so, the post season

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to J-BAY's comment:

    The rule will have be addressed with more clarification, during the offseason. This is why the last play of the game should be allowed to be reviewed, with replay. More so, the post season




    In other sports, the officials will let it go at the end of a big game. You can't decide the outcome on a controversial call like that.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    He wasn't fielding the ball.  The ball was past him.  the runner tripped over him. Was it Middlebrooks fault?  No.  Was there anything that Middlebrooks could have done to avoid the obstruction?  No.  But it's still obstruction.  Was there anything the Red Six could have done? yeah.  Salty could have thrown the ball to third.

    should never have been an issue.  if Salty makes the throw to 3rd, he's out at third.

    they didnt lose because of the umps.  The lost because they can't throw to 3rd.



    Exactly. 

    JimFromFlorida - So you know the rules better than the entire crew? You probably read the rule for the first time last night. They've probably read it 100 times. 

    It stinks and moving forward, maybe they'll change the rule to include intent and that the runner needs to make "a little" effort to get out of the way, but it's a darn rule.

    If you blame anyone, blame Salty for making a bonehead play and throw. He should have eaten the ball. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: obstruction rule

    Like most rules in baseball, it is open to interpretation, the word "likely" even appears in the rule, meaning the umps have some discretion.  In this case discretion could have let the umps decide that if you have to step over a guy to score the winning run in the a World Series game, so be it. 

    If Craig gets up and steps to his right, he has a clear path to home plate.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share