Wild ending to Game 3 of World Series

[Lozza]

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

Yup. And the runner was JUST thrown out and clearly would have made the base without the obstruction. It was an excellent call.

 

[obbay]

I am a Red Sox fan and I thought it was a great call. Clear cut obstruction, I was glad to see the official make the right call even though it meant we lost.
... then on replay I saw where it happened, which was out of the baseline!
If the runner had stayed on the correct side of the foul line rather than attempting to run in fair territory where the 3B was stretched out, there would have been no obstruction.

or am I mistaken?

either way it's water under the bridge...

(did the runner ever touch Home?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEeqKVJEW3M

 

[MTR]

Yup. And the runner was JUST thrown out and clearly would have made the base without the obstruction. It was an excellent call.

In the case of MLB, that play ends up to be irrelevant as that rule set requires an award of at least the next base from that where the OBS occurred. So, the moment the umpire's ruled OBS, that runner would have been awarded home.

 

[MTR]

I am a Red Sox fan and I thought it was a great call. Clear cut obstruction, I was glad to see the official make the right call even though it meant we lost.
... then on replay I saw where it happened, which was out of the baseline!
If the runner had stayed on the correct side of the foul line rather than attempting to run in fair territory where the 3B was stretched out, there would have been no obstruction.

or am I mistaken?

either way it's water under the bridge...

You are mistaken, well, maybe. At no time is a runner required to stay on or near a base line. The runner's actions determine the base path. If the runner wanted to take a path toward the mound and then turn toward the plate, that's fine as long as the action doesn't create interference or is an obvious act to draw an OBS call.

 

[starsnuffer]

I was proud of my daughter who called the obstruction as it happened while she was watching the game with me. She umpires rec and B ball tournaments for extra $ but I had a "proud daddy" moment that she was actually watching the game from that point of view, it had never occurred to me that she was before.

-W

 

[WARRIORMIKE]

Crazy stuff there. For Sure

 

[Eric F]

You are mistaken, well, maybe. At no time is a runner required to stay on or near a base line. The runner's actions determine the base path. If the runner wanted to take a path toward the mound and then turn toward the plate, that's fine as long as the action doesn't create interference or is an obvious act to draw an OBS call.

Really? I'm not a rules guy, but this doesn't sound right at all. Please explain.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

You are mistaken, well, maybe. At no time is a runner required to stay on or near a base line. The runner's actions determine the base path. If the runner wanted to take a path toward the mound and then turn toward the plate, that's fine as long as the action doesn't create interference or is an obvious act to draw an OBS call.

Really? I'm not a rules guy, but this doesn't sound right at all. Please explain.

The call for being "out of the base line" is when a runner alters their path by more than 3 feet to avoid a tag. It isn't for straying too far from the base line.

 

[Eric F]

The call for being "out of the base line" is when a runner alters their path by more than 3 feet to avoid a tag. It isn't for straying too far from the base line.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[obbay]

Except in softball where a runner can be called out for being out of the baseline/base path even if they are running to 1B.