I'm one of those that is wondering if the runner ever did touch the plate. But when the umpire called him safe when he clearly was tagged out before reaching home was initially confusing.

I suspected OBS was going to be the call but watching it live the first time, it wasn't obvious to me. All I focused on was yet another throw from the plate area sailing off into never land.

BTW, Nava did a great job of backing up that throw, getting to the ball, and making a great throw himself. None of which will be remembered.

This is certainly going down as one of the more unconventional World Series. Not sure if it will ever qualify as a classic.

Not at all true. Not even close.

Nope. There is no intent required in the rule.

If you go watch the replays you will see Demuth (PU) pointing at 3B just after the obstruction and as the runner was headed home.

There was no play being made on the obstructed runner. At the time of the obstruction the ball was loose in LF.

In this case (OBR rule 7.06(b )) play continues and ends when playing action ceases. At that time the umpires may award whatever they feel is necessary to negate the obstruction. This can be nothing if they think the runner would have been out anyhow and range to awarding the run as they did here.

I was just repeating.

Be careful. It also ends when the obstructed runner is put out, and the out is going to get nullifed due to the obstruction.

If this had been the game-tying run, for example, the play would have been killed when the tag was made, and there would not have been an opportunity for the defense to play on the batter-runner.

But I know you know that.

It has been one of the more eventful World Series. The overturn of the Out call at second base in Game 1, the two errors on one play in Game 2, the obstruction call in Game 3, the pickoff to end a game in Game 4. It seems like every game is providing something you don't see every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
Do you think the leg-raising is what decided the call?

Do you see "intent" anywhere in my question? :confused:

And pointing toward a general area that is not of the umpire's general assignment from the other side of the next closest base and everyone is supposed to know what that means? Seems to me the U3 saw the OBS in his general area of responsibility and either pointed with left hand or extended it for a moment. That I immediately recognized, as probably did many, if not most folks familiar with the game.

I know this is going to come down to semantics, but...

MLB rule 7.06(a) states that when a play is made on the OBS runner, the umpire shall call time. Nowhere does it state that such a play be made by the defender who caused the OBS. To me, when the catcher tags the OBS runner, that is your play which ends action.

But if you want to stick with 7.06(a), that states "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

As I understand it, 7.06(a) applies if a play is being made on the obstructed runner at the time of the obstruction. That is where the 1 base award beyond the last base touched comes into play. (Picture a pick off at first - or any base)
The situation the other night was "Type B" where the runner was obstructed before any play was being made on him at the time of the obstruction.

Hugo, I do understand that. I could have been a little clearer as I was referring to the wording of 7.06 in general which is why I noted it probably come down to semantics. Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

I figured that, just figured I'd throw in my 2 cents worth to clarify it for anyone who was less familiar with the baseball rule.
Turns out having the ability to cut and paste the whole thing made it more like contributing a $1.45 than 2 cents.

It was the first time a game has ended on an obstruction call since 2004.

Dead on!

The reason behind splitting the two in pro baseball rules is to provide for a harsher penalty against the defense should they obstruct a runner during a play.

For example, a runner caught in a rundown between third and home is obstructed as he attempts to dive back into third base. If it was one catch-all obstruction rule as it is in other organizations, the award would be third base, since that's the base he would have achieved minus the obstruction. But the MLB rule mandates an award of home for the runner.

The real question is, Why the need for a harsher penalty? I dunno. Maybe the rulesmakers felt that without it, it would lead to unwanted shenanigans by the defense. Suppose when a pitcher throws to first base to hold the runner, the first baseman intentionally positioning himself in the runner's path back to the bag to prevent him from accessing it. Calling obstruction and putting the runner safely on first doesn't prevent the first baseman from continuing to do this until, by chance, they do throw a runner out just before the hindrance takes place. Awarding the runner second base after the first obstruction violation puts an immediate end to this.