Re: obstruction rule
posted at 10/29/2013 8:03 PM EDT
In response to andrewmitch's comment:
In response to LloydDobler's comment:
In response to MattC05's comment:
Unlike many other rules that assess penalties when an infraction occurs, the point of the obstruction rule is not to penalize the defense. It is to assess what would have happened if no infraction occurred. I don't think there is anyone here who would argue that if Craig HADN'T tripped over Middlebrooks, he wouldn't have scored. That is the crux of it. If Craig was able to run cleanly to home, it was an easy run scored. He couldn't, so the umpires made the call.
It was NOT a penalty against the Sox. I think understanding that is key to getting past this call.
Which we should probably all do, since it was three days ago.
Craig continued to stumble all the way home. Was the because of what happened w/ WMB 40 feet earlier? No way. He would had been out regardless. It's not a free base - you proceed at your own risk.
FWIW, I have NEVER seen obstruction called and the runner not awarded the next base. It apears that if the umpires feel the obstruction is significant enough to call it's also significant enough to award the base.
In that regard it's much like a batted ball bouncing into the stands. The umpires have the discretion to award baserunners as many bases as they feel that runner would have gotten, but I can't remember a time when they awarded anything other than than two bases.