You completely misunderstand obstruction then. It's really very simple - with a few exceptions that don't apply here, a fielder cannot impede the runner's progress. Period. At all. All the umpire needs to see here is that the runner's progress was impeded by a fielder who didn't have the ball. Done. Obstruction. No thought required. No judgement needed.

What?? You're kidding, right? What other calls can we make that we shouldn't make, in your opinion?

I thought the same thing, until Kenny Rosenthal stated that MLB will relook at the rule, at least according to Joe Torre.

I sure hope this isn't the case. But if it is, then Torre needs to be smacked upside the head as well.

Since both umpires called obstruction and it's a play coming to DeMuth's base (plate), I am perfectly comfortable with DeMuth deciding the effect of the obstruction.

DeMuth's mechanic, IMO, is far better than any book mechanic. It was clear, concise, and explained the reason for the safe decision IMMEDIATELY.

Pease answer with a yes or no only. Was this an "automatic" award of home plate in that situation?

No. If you'll permit a couple of more words, constable answered this in the first post after yours:

Excessive pine tar on the handle of the bat.

If you're referring to the McGuire incident, it wasn't going to be called until Martin made an issue of it.

No.

Don't like the answer you've already been given?

As others have indicated, No.

An example of obstruction where home would be "automatically" awarded is if the runner was obstructed while a play is being made upon him between third and home, such as on a rundown. That's obstruction under rule 7.08a. Under 7.08b where obstruction occurs while no play is being made, nothing is automatic.

McGuire?

How soon they forget....

You're absolutely correct, George Brett. My bad.

That's not a "call". That's enforcement of an administrative procedure that has no bearing on the outcome of play. Kinda like enforcing a base coach to stay in his box.

I'm talking about a true "call" that results in safes, outs, base awards, etc.

I'm not trying to act like I'm on a high horse...but, I can't believe how many posters on this thread on this board (which I have a high regard for) seem to be having issues with this play (or the umpires' ruling on this play).

This was not a hard call for an experienced umpire to make (I don't mean that as an insult to newer umpires on this board). Watching it live on TV even I (a mere former MiLB umpire) yelled, "obstruction" right away.

This is classic "Type B" obstruction.

For those who feel it should not be obstruction because F5 couldn't have gotten out of the way: once F5 misses the throw he has to "disappear" (not my word, Jeff Nelson's (chief rules instructor) word at umpire school). It doesn't matter that he can't actually disappear (physics are a bitch, sometimes)...the rules require that he must. Once he is no longer in the act of fielding the ball...he instantaneously has no right to be there, period. It sucks, but 'dem the breaks.

For those who got hung up on a belief that R2 should have automatically been awarded home plate: In OBR, when obstruction occurs you immediately have to determine whether or not the defense was making a play on the runner at the time of the obstruction. What is a "play"? A play for purposes of obstruction is (1) a tag or attempted tag of a runner, (2) tag or attempted tag of a base (in an attempt to retire a runner), (3) a throw from one fielder to another fielder (in an attempt to retire a runner) or (4) a rundown.

At the time R2 made contact with the prone F5, was any of those 4 possible plays occurring? Heck no! The ball was rolling down the left field line. Hence, the ball is NOT immediately dead...and we have Type "B" (and not Type "A") obstruction. Hence, the umpire must let the play continue. The umpire is to decide how many steps the obstruction cost him. If he is thrown out by that many steps (or fewer steps), then the umpire will protect the runner to that base (award the runner that base). In Type "B" obstruction, if the defense makes a play on the obstructed runner, and the umpire decides at the time they finally make a play on that runner that he is going to protect that runner, then the ball becomes dead at that moment (when the defense makes a play on the protected runner) and the umpire will award any base(s) that will nullify the obstruction.

For those who felt that no obstruction should be called because R2 did not run in a straight line from third base to home plate: First, a runner cannot be "out of the baseline" unless a tag attempt is being made against him. Clearly that did not occur here. To ignore the obstruction, the relevant question to be asked is: "did the runner intentionally move toward the fielder in attempt to make contact with the fielder to draw an obstruction call?"

I have watched this video at least 10 times. There is absolutely no way that R2 intentionally ran toward F5 in an attempt to initiate contact in order to draw an obstruction call. R2 has every right (once he saw the ball get past F5 and down the left field line) to turn around "inside" (in fair territory) and head toward home plate. He doesn't have to "stay on the foul line" (as some idiot posters on some newspaper websites claim) or "run in foul territory". In watching the video, there is absolutely no way that anyone could convince me (even for a second) that R2 ran out of his way solely for the purpose of trying to initiate contact with F5 to draw an obstruction call. Unless he did, this whole discussion of where R2 actually ran when traveling from third to home is moot.

For an example of what can go wrong when the umpires forget to kill the ball in Type "B" obstruction when the defense eventually makes a play on the obstructed runner that the umpires decide is still protected, do a google search of "White Sox, Cubs, obstruction, 2007".

For an example of what happens to a runner in Type "B" obstruction when the defense subsequently makes a play on him and the umpires determine that he is no longer protected, go and review Game 3 of the 2003 ALDS between Boston and Oakland.

+1.

If I showed this in a class of 2+ years experienced umpires and anyone didn't agree, I'd be tempted to "pull their card" (not meant literally)