WS obstruction
 

Wow, right call but maybe more....Could an appeal of the runner missing HP be upheld?

I missed it live and haven't seen a video angle yet that shows him touching HP though he clearly passed it. Might a stirred the pot just a little more.

Obstruction call gives Cards win over Red Sox in World Series Game 3 - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

One of those calls that are tough on an umpire, but he did call it right away which he should have.

Any thoughts on the very public interview/press conference with the umps after the game? Will this get to be the norm where officials need to publically explain/justify themselves? Basketball? Football?

Had Middlebrooks not raised his legs would it have been OBS if the runner tripped over him?

Does the fact that he took off for him "inside" the baseline play into this at all?

I will not say never at this point, but I doubt seriously that this is something that will happen in other sports. Baseball has very few calls other then the HP umpire that makes multple calls on multiple pitches. Other sports have more calls that influence their games as a crew. I doubt that the pros would want to have officials talking about the multiple plays they rule on in a game. This might have been the only tough call Joyce will make in that game or the only tough call he will have the entire series. I just do not see it for those sports. But baseball seems to feel this is a good idea for some reason. Thank God for their sake it was a rather easy call and easy rule to explain. Other sports have other issues to consider when quoting their rules and might raise more issues with an ignorant media asking silly questions as they did last night.

Peace

Neither matters, contact is not required, had the runner not tripped it still would have been obs. The baseline is established by the runner, not some imaginary line, foul line, grass etc. Simply the route the runner chooses to take.

The only times a baseline matters pertain to a tag attempt and the running lane to 1B, other wise, runners can run wherever they wish.

The raising of the legs was irrelevant as stated by Joyce. The fielder needs to get out of the way after he has clearly not making a play while laying on the ground. The rule covers this very situation almost word for word.

Peace

For the record, I'm not a fan of either team . I just like to understand rules.

Let me play devil's advocate.

Middlebrooks dove toward 2nd base ie in the baseline between 2nd and 3rd. If the runner hadn't run from "inside" 3rd base there would not have been contact. So what was Middlebrooks supposed to do? He was not in the baseline between 3rd and home.

It seems like no matter what he did it was going to be OBS.

It's still OBS. Runner has every right to be progress unimpeded when a play is not being made on him.

Now, august group, what happens if Craig dusts himself off and stays at third? Is there an award?

This is irrelevent to last night because there was no appeal. However, at what point does Allen Craig have to touch the awarded base (HP)?

How much time is he given to do so? What if the catcher had stepped on the plate and appealed that AC didn't touch the plate?

Consider this: A1 hits a HR over the RF wall. As he touches first and rounds the base, he and the first-basement get into an altercation and both are ejected. Does the HR stand or is the BR also called out for not touching all the bases? Does his sub get to/have to finish touching the awarded bases?

That's alot of questions!!! Sorry. I know Rutledge isn't busy anyway. ;) Get to answering.

Part of OBR 2.00 (Def) for OBS states "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."

This key wording here is "continues". That is purely a judgmental call whether the fielder in this case continued to lie on the ground however, he did lie on the ground. And the rule DOES NOT discuss intent.

Your right, just about anything that Middlebrook did to get out of the way when the runner was going over him would not have helped. But, Dems the rules.

He's got to make an attempt toward home, to get consideration for an award. So, if an umpire decides there was any possibility that the runner could have scored without the OBS, they'll make that award when the play on that runner is over.

But, since this was the game ending run, they could have killed the play, and made that award right away.

This was clearly Type B, you do not kill the play and award.

I'm with jice, baby.

Thanks JRut. You bring up several good points. Guess only time will tell which way this goes.

I was also wondering, as it appears kylejt is, why the dead-ball signal wasn't given. Since the runner was obstructed while a play was being made on him, shouldn't have JJ killed the play according to 7.06(a)?

Does it matter at all that the ball hit Craig when he slides into third base as you can see in the video at 2:02?

Obstruction call gives Cards win over Red Sox in World Series Game 3 - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

If a runner is obstructed going back to a base that he had legally touched like in a run-down, is he awarded that base or the next one? Rule says he gets at least one base in advance of the one last legally touched. That doesn't seem right in the case of a runner returning.

7.06b
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no
further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such
penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

The runner was not Obstructed while a play was being made on him. He was obstructed while running the bases. Nor was he was obstructed going back to the base.

Not unless he intentionally attempted to interfere with F5 making the catch.

That makes sense.

I know he wasn't going back, I was just wondering about the OBR ruling for an obstructed runner while returning to a base already touched. The rule says he gets a base in advance of the one he last touched. Would this be an exception?

Thank you.

LOL!!! I do go to church on Sunday. :D

My understanding at all levels is that when you call obstruction, you give them protection for at least one base. Now I believe OBR has some different kinds of obstruction so that might be the case here, but in NCAA and NF, Craig would have gotten home either way if he made and attempt to go home and their was obstruction called. It is possible I am not correct about that fact as I have backed away from baseball in the past few years, but that is the way it was when I was working regularly.

Peace

I disagree. In most cases, he would have to make an attempt to get the award but, that should not be an absolute.

I had a runner get knocked unconscious by the lumbering 1B on an apparent triple. The CF and RF were shallow and he ripped it to the wall in Right Center and was quite speedy. The kid did not make an attempt to do anything other than hold his head, puke and pass out. He was awarded third.

Joe in Florida

It's right. Otherwise you reward the defense and punish the offense when the infraction was by the defense.

I don't like this call. I don't think it is realistic to expect the fielder to evaporate after an unsucessful attempting to field a ball.
Furthermore, in my judgement the fielder did not "continue to lie on the ground" since he had only been there for a fraction of a second.
Just because you can call obstruction doesn't mean you should call obstruction.
About the only good thing about this play is that is may serve to educate idiot fans (and announcers) the difference between obstruction and interference. Otherwise, I just don't like this application of this rule.

p.s. no fanboy here since I dislike both teams equally.

By rule and by interpretation this is the correct call. The runner has a right to run unimpeded. He couldn't. It doesn't matter how the fielder ended up impeding him. Runner impeded by fielder without the ball is obstruction.

Great call by one of, if not the best, umpires in the game.

I agree 100% and I am a Sox fan however, that is the rule. As I said before, "Did F5 continue to lay there on purpose, probably not. But he did lay there and just about anything short of disappearing was not going to change that call. The rules may not be fair but, dems da rules.

So you mean you think the rule should be changed? THat might have some merit as a discussion, but the rule as it is was correctly applied.

It's the defense's fault that F5 was lying there, so the defense gets punished.

Don't want to risk OBS? -- get off the bag and get the ball instead of diving for it.

The wackos are at it already before the first Red Sox batter was out. McCarver and Buck were complaining that the obstruction needs to be changed so that it is not obstruction if it was not intentional. Would somebody please smack them both upside their heads.

MTD, Sr.

For all the naysayers all F5 had to do to avoid the obstruction was catch and hold on to the ball. Then he can be in the baseline all he wants. Oh it was a bad throw you say....so I guess that's the runners fault? The defense had there chance to make the play and blew it.

Now if Tim and Joe can just shut up and stop talking about it. Tim in his infinite wisdom has just declared the rule needs to be revisited and intent has to become part of it as if an umpires job isn't hard enough already.

Would it matter on this play if the runner gets thrown out by 30 feet at the plate. Is is automatically given home because he made the attempt at home or could he be called out at that point?

No sir, I don't feel the rule needs to be changed. I do not, however, feel it was correctly applied in this case. I feel the phrase everybody seems to be pointing to ("continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner") was not met in this case, unless you feel less than a second of inactivity constitutes a continuing act. I don't think it does.

The fielder was lying where he was because he was doing what he was supposed to be doing. To me this was a train wreck (or fender bender), not OBS.

If obstruction required intent, you can basically delete the entire rule.

Just a reminder if someone could please answer post #32 please. Thanks

In this type of obstruction it is a judgement call as to whether or not he could have scored. Once that is considered, placement of the runners is determined.

Hope this helps.

Suppose that the throw from LF to home beats the runner by 20 feet. The runner then gets caught in a run down and after a few throws back and forth, he is tagged out in a rundown.

We know that he would not have scored, so an award of home is not an option. If you are protecting him to 3B, is he now out because he advanced past the base to which he was entitled?

Going back to the OP. I, too, noticed that the runner never touched home plate. However, no appeal was ever made. Maybe it's because the PU botched the mechanics and called him safe, rather than calling time and awarding the base.

Getting the call right and selling it are more important than using the correct mechanics. They way Demuth and Joyce communicated and sold the call was excellent and left no mistake as to what their call was.

I think his right foot touches the plate or at least comes close enough so that a viewer of the video can't tell. See 1:24 and 1:58 of the video linked in the OP. DeMuth may have judged that he did touch the plate just after the tag.

Either way, the runner has an indefinite amount of time to reach and touch the plate, since it is an award, and I haven't seen any videos that show whether the runner touched the plate in the following scrum.

It worked out ok in this case, but if Joyce had only protected the runner to 3rd base, DeMuth's improper 'safe' mechanic would not have helped at all.

In your play, the out would stand -- just as it would if he was thrown out by 20 feet and kept going for home.

If the obstruction occurred while a play was being made on the runner, then the ball would have been dead immediately and any awards made -- with a minimum of 1 base to the obstructed runner.

This was about as easy as it gets, imo.

(And let me add that the HS rule is different. Most umpires know that, but we have several fans reading this.)

Make a better throw or catch the ball if you want the right to stand in the basepath. Didn't do that? Well then you've forfeited your right to be in the way, even for a millisecond. Easy call.

Do you have the ball? Nope. Are you about to field the ball? Nope. Did you impede the runner in any way? Yep. We're done here.

Obstruction was determined for This Play, at the time of the infraction, which means he was protected to a one base award beyond the runners last legally touched base. He was entitled to Home at this point and that "nullifis the act of obstruction" as stated in 7.06b.

OBR 7.06b If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

Your scenario is relative to a runner going beyond the base to which he is protected. 7.06b Comment.

the minimum one base award is only for Type A obstruction. There is no minimum for Type B. You could change the world series play a bit and have the out at the plate stand.

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)

If both umpires had made the OBS call, I would agree with you (although I think it would be just as clear if DeMuth had called time when the tag was applied and awarded the plate on the OBS). But Hirschbeck's remarks at the press conference indicated (in so many words) it was Joyce's call and DeMuth was mirroring it.

Assuming that is the case (and I know that is a critical assumption), DeMuth awarded a base for a violation he did not call. What if Joyce judged that the runner would be out at the plate absent the OBS? As Bob has said, you don't have to change the WS play much to get there.

Just trying to imagine the outcry if they hadn't called it.

As the plate umpire with everything in front of me, I'm making that decision pretty much right away as long as I know there's obstruction involved.

If you didn't call the OBS, then the base award is not your decision.

It would have been preferable for DeMuth to call "time," especially since the runner was thrown out. At that time, the ball is dead. Once the ball became dead, it would have been better either (a) Joyce to point at home plate and award the runner home or (b) get together with DeMuth, provided Joyce needed any additional information.

I thought that some of the baseball gurus would have brought up the scramble-unscramble philosophy to obstruction/interference.

Exactly. They'd still be talking about it, and the Red Sox could have possibly won the series last night. The play happened. The correct call was made. Move on. Continue to love the game.

Sooo, you're the PU, and you see your U2 partner rule OBS on R1 as R1 heads for second on a hit-n-run in the gap. As play continues, there's a throw to home to make a play on R1 attempting to score, and in the meantime, the BR rounds second and heads for third. Are you suggesting that U2 should take his eyes off the BR and potentially miss the touch of second base to judge on the play at R1 at home, and then make the long-distance call?

One reason why umpires point and announce the obstruction violation is to let other partners know what's going on. If I see my partner do that, I'm tracking the hindered runner and making the call at my base. And if I was the umpire making the obstruction call, I would intervene only if I see my partner rule the runner out on a close play.

Nobody brought it up because it doesn't apply. F5 wasn't attempting to retrieve a loose ball in his vicinity; it was well away from the scrum. So there is no valid argument to excuse the fielder.

i might of missed it on this thread but can someone give the NFHS ruling on this exact play?

Since the OBS was after R2 reached third, R3 is awarded home. The ball is "delayed dead"

Of course not. The OBS call does not affect the umpires' individual responsibilities.

The MLBUM is clear that the umpire who calls the type (b) OBS is responsible for doing whatever nullifies the OBS. When the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching his award base, and the safe/out call belongs to an umpire other than the one who called the OBS, the mechanic becomes awkward.

In the WS game, it was obvious that the runner was going to be awarded the plate, so DeMuth's mechanics worked just fine. But change things just a little bit - say U3 judged that the runner was going back to the base and would not have scored absent the obstruction.

U3 can't communicate his judgment (regarding the award) to the PU before the play at the plate happens, so the PU is in a quandary - he doesn't know if the ball is live or dead when the obstructed runner is tagged. His only choice (and it's by the book) is to bang the runner out on the tag. If applicable, U3 can then call time and make the award. If not, the ball stays live and it's all good (except for the ensuing shitstorm).

I have a problem with the call because Craig's slide took Middlebrooks feet out from under him.

First, I don't think he did. Second, even if he did it was without question a legal slide into the base. Third, what's that have to do with anything?

Middlebrooks, in the baseline without the ball and not making a play, impeding a runner. Easy call.

It's has a lot to do with everything. I never said the slide was illegal. Craig did help take Middlebrooks legs out from under him. Middlebrooks wouldn't be on the ground if that didn't happen.

So I guess you would call obstruction on a steal attempt where the runner goes in hard causing the fielder to go down on top of the runner. Everybody starts to untangle from there. Looks like the same to me. Middlebrooks wasn't holding him down.

Middlebrooks was attempting to catch the ball when contact was made. In my book, Joyce only saw Middlebrooks lying on the ground, and took it from there.

Heck, wasn't it Demuth that made the bad call at 2B that was obvious to most everyone in the park except him.

Here, You can daable check.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/s...olliday-102613

I fail to see where the call was so cut, and dried.

Doesn't matter. There is nothing in the obstruction definition, rule, or authoritative interpretations that excuse a fielder for hindering a runner because the runner legally contacted the fielder and knocked him to the ground.

If the ball got past the fielder and is out in the outfield, and I judge that the fielder hinders the runner's attempt to get up by staying on him, you betcha. But if I feel the fiedler immediately tried to get off the runner, then I would probably judge that there was no hindrance.

90% of this is completely irrelevant. This call is absolutely cut and dried. Call the rule. Don't make up your own holes in the rule where you can judge things that are not part of the rule.

If Craig did/had missed the plate (and went back to the dugout and the defense stayed in fair territory) is this appealable or is it an awarded base with no touch necessary?

Most think the former; a few think the "whatever penalties" wording in part (b) allows the touch itself to be awarded.

One might say it was "textbook," no?

In FED, you're correct. Not so with NCAA anymore or OBR. The NCAA's OBS rule matches that of OBR now.

Add me to the list of people on here that think you're dead wrong.

This is the best write up I've seen on this situation as of yet. This is exactly correct.

This is so unbelievably wrong I don't even know where to start.

Even if Craig made a little contact (Which I don't think he made much contact at all), it is totally irrelevant. He slid straight into third base and the somewhat poor throw pulled Middlebrooks off the base and onto the ground. If the throw is better or if he catches it, we're not having this discussion. Craig did nothing wrong and Middlebrooks obstructed him.

I'm with lawump. I can not believe there are umpires with experience above rec ball that don't think this was obstruction. It is baffling honestly.

Your aforementioned statement is one of the main reasons I liked it when Fox had Steve Palermo in the booth. No need to listen to Buck and McCarver

If Palermo was in the booth he would have explained things perfectly clear (whether you liked the rule or not)

Pete Booth

Irrelevant isn't a word. Try non-relevant next time. I see a fielder knocked to the ground by a runner. I know the rule, and how it reads. It is of my opinion that Middlebrooks did nothing to intentionally or unintentionally obstruct Craig from advancing to home....

I'm thinking if Demuth is calling obstruction, why isn't he killing the play, and awarding home? He should have just made the call at home, and Joyce would be the one awarding the plate to Craig. I guess he just got caught up in the excitement.

Wasn't it Demuth working the plate at the All Star game in St. Louis, and with a hard hit foul ball down the left field line, he had his hands up touching his shoulders like a 20 second time out in the NBA? The call wasn't even his to make in the first place, much less use a basketball mechanic.

So what's the difference in what I said, and what you said you wouldn't call? Remember we have no definition, rule, or authoritative interpretations to back up what up your decision would be.

Since you didn't see it, I'll explain it to you. Craig slid, and helped take Middlebrooks legs out from under him. It wasn't a dive for the ball by Middlebrooks. He was reaching for the ball...............actually Craig used Middlebrooks as support to get up, and when trying to go home he barely caught his foot on Middlebrooks back..............get real. Maybe obstruction in your book, but I don't ever recall seeing a play like the one that took place being call obstruction.

Instead of agreeing with the status quo, I would like to hear your take of the play.

The only point I'm trying to make different is that Middlebrooks was on the ground because Craig help get him there. The slide was clean. I just saw two players doing what they were supposed to do.

Uh....irrelevant most certainly is a word. How on earth can you conclude that Middlebrooks did nothing to obstruct Craig? So being directly in front of him and causing him to trip is nothing? I can only conclude you don't want to see it.

That's the "FOUL, no wait I take that back!" mechanic. I know because I've used it myself.

Not completely a true statement. Middlebrook was on the ground because he dove for the ball AND incidental contact with Craig in what can be described as a clean slide.

I also saw "two players doing what they were supposed to do" however, as an official it is your job to interpret if what happened is in accordance with the rules and if, or if not, rule accordingly, again in conformance with the rules.

Incidental contact relevant to "two players doing what they were supposed to do" is not treated the same way within the rulebook. And although we may not like that, it is our job to know the differences and rule accordingly.

Did Middlebrook "continue" to lay on the ground purposely? Although he can't disappear, the rules suggest that he has to. Unlike a batter in the box who is allowed to complete what he is doing then is given time to disappear.

Trying to officiate to what you think is fair and in the rules is not always what is really in the rules. But those are the rules.

Yes, it is.

Perhaps you are thinking of "irregardless"

Middlebrooks had his feet cut from under him, thus his being on the ground. Middlebrooks was attempting to get up when Craig put both of his hands in Middlebrooks back using him as leverage to get up first. So do you have interference then?

Looking forward to your next salvo.

Pathetic
 

The moderator who locked the obstruction thread doesn't really get what a moderator job is................bye, bye to this thread. I was looking forward to more discussion, maybe more insight than, "Because I said so."

The baseball forum has gotten even more absurd. Why I rarely visit. It's still to the point where only a few posters opinions matter. Nothing has changed. We just have more people with axes to grind. I won't complain to Brad, because that's what babies do in my estimation. Like it would do any good anyway. The only reason that thread got locked was because of personality conflicts.

It's become like that old saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". My argument would that, "Bullets kill people." would be wrong. Irregardless I'm sure I'm the only one to blame.

I still don't see why obstruction was called being that the reason Middlebrooks was on the ground was because Craig contacted him putting him there.

Peace.

I haven't read the thread yet. It was, by rule, Type b obstruction since the third baseman was in the base path without the ball and not making a play: The ball was already past him.

i think replay shows that Middlebrooks went prone to stop the errant throw. It's true he couldn't disappear. That is, as they say, hard cheese.

I'm going to the thread now. I've been hard at work on the 2014 BRD, on sale this week. And that's a blatant plug! (grin)

I look at it not like a train wreck, but a fender bender. I see Craig using a popup slide, and contacting Middlebrooks as he was coming up.

If that was a dive, Olympic judges would have given him a. -8.0......:)

Here is the link. You get a good look at about 2 minute mark.

Obstruction call gives Cards win over Red Sox in World Series Game 3 - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

It was locked because it was going in circles and had devolved into a bunch of personal attacks and an irrelevant discussion about whether "irrelevant" is a word.

I locked it, I'll reopen it.

Keep it on topic, don't get personal with it.

Since Middlebrooks was not attempting to field a batted (or thrown) ball, interference is not possible.

Craig was hindered directly in his path to the plate while the ball was in the outfield. No-brainer (b) OBS.

I apologize for my contributions to that. I did "self moderate" a post I made.

FWIW, I agree with the decision to close it.

So you're saying Middlebrooks wasn't making a play. I believe Middlebrooks would have caught the throw if not for the contact made by Craig. I've seen plays like this several times, and not once was an obstruction call made. Craig even used Middlebrooks as support to get up.

It's always like an echo chamber in here. If nobody supports my position, I can live with it............it wasn't obstruction after Craig knocked Middlebrooks to the ground. Kind of hard to do anything but be in the way.after that.

Jim Joyce bailed out the Cardinals. As least John Ferrell didn't stand out there, and argue like Mike Matheny did on the obvious non-transfer call.

Plus I don't care who won the game, or the World Series. I barely watched any of it for that matter.

Let me know when the next bandwagon leaves town...........:)

Thank you.