Wild ending to Game 3 of World Series

[CoogansBluff]

Everybody should be well-educated about what obstruction means after a World Series game is ended on an obstruction call. Sounds like blue got it right. I admire the that they didn't give the fielder some liberty just because of the gravity of the moment, being a deciding play in the World Series.

I don't usually like Bleacher Report, but here's a good assessment of it -

Was Obstruction the Right Call to Make on Wild Last Play of Game 3? | Bleacher Report

It's interesting that the umpires answered questions to the media after the game. Didn't realize that was common practice, but glad they did.

Two things that I didn't know - One is that a fielder lying on the ground after trying to field a ball can be called for obstruction when he has nowhere else to go. In this case, the fielder raised his legs. But I would've thought that if he had just frozen and the runner leaped over him that it wouldn't be grounds for obstruction.

Also, I didn't realize that it was in the umpire's judgment whether the runner would've been safe at home. I thought obstruction gave you the next base as long as the runner was attempting the next base when obstructed. So technically speaking, if a runner is going to be out by 20 feet, you can tackle him without penalty.

 

[MountieSB]

I loved the outrage of all the talking heads on TV last night and this morning. Clearly, they haven't coached high school or youth league softball - they'd know the obstruction rule inside and out if they did!

 

[CoogansBluff]

There are some who argue that big games in any sport should be decided by the players, not the officials. But if you take that stance, you're asking officials to officiate differently in big games. It's most commonly seen in basketball, where you are perhaps less likely to see a foul called on a meaningful final play/shot of the game.

I admire the umpires for making a decisive call with no thought about what the call would mean. But then again, if the umpire had not made that call, I suspect there would've been a pretty loud argument from the Cardinals -- if they saw it. As soon as the ball gets away, everybody is looking at where the ball is going. But the umpire, being a pro, continues to watch the runner and fielder.

 

[JJsqueeze]

My reaction was shock when the runner was called safe at home. Then when they showed the interference. I just said "great call". I am reading some reactions and there is a lot of biased stupidity out there. This should not be controversial at all, it was a great call and an exciting finish.

 

[Eric F]

Proud dad moment...I just showed the video to my 9yo DD, and she said, "That's obstruction!"

 

[James Smith]

Also, I didn't realize that it was in the umpire's judgment whether the runner would've been safe at home. I thought obstruction gave you the next base as long as the runner was attempting the next base when obstructed. So technically speaking, if a runner is going to be out by 20 feet, you can tackle him without penalty.

I think that is true in SB too, it is not an automatic free base.

I THINK they get returned to their base though and not called out.

 

[Umpire]

The runner is entitled to the base they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. Simple as that.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Also, I didn't realize that it was in the umpire's judgment whether the runner would've been safe at home. I thought obstruction gave you the next base as long as the runner was attempting the next base when obstructed. So technically speaking, if a runner is going to be out by 20 feet, you can tackle him without penalty.

I think that is true in SB too, it is not an automatic free base.

I THINK they get returned to their base though and not called out.

The baseball and softball rules for OBS are very different.

Baseball varies by whether a play is being made on the runner or not. If so, it is a dead ball and the obstructed runner is awarded at least the next base, including the advancement of preceding runners that are forced to advance by the award. In cases like last night (e.g. after a play on the runner), it is a delayed dead ball, the umpire only awards base(s) to nullify the obstruction and there is no provision to place a runner back on the previous base. If they had deemed the runner would have been out without the obstruction, the runner would have been called out. Joe Torre mentioned this happened in a 2003 ALDS game where Tejada was tagged out after being obstructed at 3B because he casually jogged toward home thinking it was an automatic award.

Softball rules generally protect the runner from being called out between the 2 bases where obstruction occurred and there is no automatic award of bases.

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

This rule on the obstruction reminds me of the discussion back in June of the wording on the wrist can not be further from the body than the elbow, can't do it.

Today there was commentary that this obstruction rule will be visited in the off season to clarify intent or no intent, judgement of the umpire, can the fielder actually move, "intent or no intent".

If you saw last night 2 different plays that the Cards ss and 2nd bsm layed out for, in so doing as they are laying out for the ball flat on their stomach, their legs and feet raised identical as Middlebrooks did at 3rd on going for the errant throw, then Craig is getting up after his slide and puts his hands on Middlebrook and pushes on him in order to get over him.

It's ironic that some rules are written without any anticipation as to the speed of a play and how the play may occur, if the words "intent or no intent are the key words, then that's the rule, but it appears the rule is up for discussion.

The same thing should be looked at as the rule in the wrist not being further from the body than the elbow.

And the MLB strike zone is the umpires zone not as the rule is written,, the batters continually extend it higher than they call it or as the rule states.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING STRANGE ,GO TO A BALL GAME!

As Peter Gammons stated, "you could talk forever on the gray area of the rule book". Had it not been for a catcher making an un necessary throw, this would not have happened.

 

[Umpire]

I have to love all of the people commenting on "intent" with respect to obstruction. Clearly these people just heard or read the rule for the first time within the last 48 hours. Clearly they do not have the mental capacity to consider how changing the rule to require intent would change the definition of obstruction in an absolutely horrendous way. In fact, you might has well just get rid of the rule. Obstruction occurs in nearly every game I work outside of NCAA, where it is much less frequent due to stricter penalties and a slightly different definition than elsewhere. Most often, nothing comes of the obstruction call because the runner safely obtains the base she would have reached had there not been obstruction, and quite often it is simply the last base touched. If you coach or umpire a 12u game and don't see obstruction committed by a first baseman or catcher who is just standing around, then you aren't paying attention.

Anyone who thinks that batters routinely swing at pitches higher than the rule states simply does not know what the rule means. And I mean the actual rule, not some piece of crap strike zone created by a TV broadcast. The one that TBS uses allows for calling of strikes provided the ball is merely six inches off the ground.