# MLB: 2013 Postseason
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978
**Category:** The Game Room
**Created:** [September 30, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978 "2013-09-30T04:26:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 33
### Author:  [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/641 "2013-10-27T16:39:08Z")
I think they made exactly the correct call. Why shouldn’t the runner get the unobstructed base path that he is entitled to? It’s certainly not his fault the fielder is in his way.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/642 "2013-10-27T16:43:18Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#):
>
> Why shouldn’t the runner get the unobstructed base path that he is entitled to?
Why shouldn’t the fielder be permitted to try to catch the ball?
---
### Author:  [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/643 "2013-10-27T16:49:33Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Why shouldn’t the fielder be permitted to try to catch the ball?
He is and was. Then he missed and the ball went past, and he was no longer in the act of fielding. That’s explicitly in the rules:
> [@](#):
>
> After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball.
---
### Author:  [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/644 "2013-10-27T17:01:54Z")
In other words, you can block the runner to try to make a play, but if you block him, you’d better make it.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/645 "2013-10-27T17:03:13Z")
> [@chizzuk](#):
>
> I’m pissed off that a World Series game ended that way on a judgment call and there was nothing available to look at it again and be sure. Meanwhile every Sunday I watch the NFL double-check each touchdown. It was a rare call in a key situation in the pinnacle of the sport, what’s wrong with using video to confirm it?
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> But the very example codified in the rule allows for exceptions, so it’s not simply “you either obstructed or you don’t,” I don’t think. The umpire needs to exercise judgment. IMO, a fielder who is prone from having attempted to field a ball and had no real chance to get the hell out of the way should not be considered to have obstructed. If the rule allows for exceptions, and that’s not one, what _would_ be an allowable exception?
This blog post seems to be aimed at guys like you: [Jim Joyce had to call obstruction, because baseball isn’t football](http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/world-series-2013/2013/10/27/5033754/world-series-obstruction-jim-joyce)
It argues this was not and should not be a judgment call, the way it might be in the NFL.
> [@](#):
>
> You can imagine how this might go in football or basketball, and I think the reason it’s a controversy at all is that a lot of people carried on doing that.
>
> In baseball only an umpire’s strikezone reshapes the game; he can favor the pitchers, or the hitters, or he can seem to favor chaos and uncertainty. People hate this, and they ought to. In football and basketball, though, officials are (supposedly) influencing the tone of a game. You hear this from announcers in every playoff basketball game, whether it’s happening or not—the players are getting more physical, they’re policing themselves, they’re being allowed to play the game themselves or should be.
>
> And it’s easy to draw a line from that to this play, which looks a little more like football or basketball than most. Let the players play; don’t end the game on a ticky-tack foul. Will Middlebrooks fell over in the course of making the play; he didn’t appear to fall over on purpose; sometimes players trip.
>
> But once a sport has to decide to let the players play, it can’t do it anymore. Jim Joyce watched Allen Craig trip over Will Middlebrooks. He knew the rule. Once he saw the play and knew the rule, there was no way for him to not decide the game. Either he called obstruction, and the Cardinals won, or he decided to Let The Players Play, and they were out of the inning.
>
> When an official is forced to make a judgment call you’re watching a sport at its breaking point; a decision is left to one man because there’s no way to resolve it inside the ebb and flow of the game itself. Somebody has to decide whether a player’s been obstructed or not; that one’s easy. Degree is more difficult, which is why he only needs to decide whether the obstruction was the difference between a run and an out. Intent is impossible, and baseball has wisely pushed it out of Jim Joyce’s brain. Major League Baseball makes its share of mistakes, but they don’t make this one. They do not let the umpires let the players play.
---
### Author:  [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/646 "2013-10-27T17:13:47Z")
I’m an amateur umpire, been to clinics every year for 20 years and spent countless hours discussing obstruction, and made many obstruction calls myself. That call was a no-brainer.
---
### Author:  [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/647 "2013-10-27T17:25:22Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#):
>
> I take back everything almost everything I said. Looking at a close-up, slow-motion shot, it looks like Craig tripped over Middelbrooks’s butt, not his legs at all. And based on the rules, if Middlebrooks didn’t lift his legs, and Craig still tripped over him, it’s still obstruction.
>
> About the only thing I can salvage from my post is that, if Craig hadn’t tripped over Middlebrooks, I think he would likely have been safe.
wonder what the call would have been if craig used middlebrooks keister as a launching pad, and sprang off of it.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/648 "2013-10-27T17:28:29Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#):
>
> It argues this was not and should not be a judgment call, the way it might be in the NFL.
But this argument is a fail, IMO, because the very words in the rule include “very likely,” which means, “not always.” It is a judgment call definitionally, based on the plain English.
---
### Author:  [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/649 "2013-10-27T18:00:56Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> But this argument is a fail, IMO, because the very words in the rule include “very likely,” which means, “not always.” It is a judgment call definitionally, based on the plain English.
The words “very likely” are not in the rule, they are in an _example_ given in the rule. An example is not meant to cover every possibility of every case.
Here’s the rule:
> [@](#):
>
> OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
> Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball.
There are three requirements for obstruction. 1) the fielder is not in possession of the ball. 2) the fielder is not in the act of fielding the ball. 3) the fielder impedes the progress of the runner.
Requirements 1) and 3) are obviously met. Requirement 2) can be a judgement call, but the case here is directly addressed in the comment, with no “likely” or “maybe” about it. The fielder is not in the act of fielding the ball. All three requirements are met. It is obstruction.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/650 "2013-10-27T18:46:04Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#):
>
> He is and was. Then he missed and the ball went past, and he was no longer in the act of fielding.
And at that point, he was on the ground, and the runner was on top of him, pushing down on his butt. What is he supposed to do to avoid “blocking” the runner?
---
### Author:  [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/651 "2013-10-27T19:03:50Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> And at that point, he was on the ground, and the runner was on top of him, pushing down on his butt. What is he supposed to do to avoid “blocking” the runner?
Nothing. So obstruction gets called, per the rules, because his presence impeded the runner.
Then, _as I understand it_, the home plate umpire makes a ruling based on the likely outcome if obstruction had not occurred. The runner wasn’t simply awarded home just because of the obstruction. He still had to run it out. So the fielder doesn’t get a benefit from the obstruction, but neither does the base runner. The base runner only gets what he would have if there had been no obstruction.
---
### Author:  [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/652 "2013-10-27T19:04:47Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> And at that point, he was on the ground, and the runner was on top of him, pushing down on his butt. What is he supposed to do to avoid “blocking” the runner?
Catch the ball, so that he’d be in the act of fielding. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/653 "2013-10-27T19:18:01Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#):
>
> Nothing. So obstruction gets called, per the rules, because his presence impeded the runner.
So the only way the fielder could avoid obstructing was not to try to catch the ball. That is what I said upthread. Under this rule, the runner has a right to run, but the field has no right to field.
---
### Author:  [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/654 "2013-10-27T19:28:05Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> So the only way the fielder could avoid obstructing was not to try to catch the ball. That is what I said upthread. Under this rule, the runner has a right to run, but the field has no right to field.
No. He has the right to field. I don’t know why you say that, since the rules explicitly say he has the right the field the ball. As **Gorsnak** said, if he caught the ball, it wouldn’t be obstruction. He just isn’t allowed any benefit to being in the runner’s way after missing the ball.
---
### Author:  [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/655 "2013-10-27T19:31:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Under this rule, the runner has a right to run, but the field has no right to field.
But that’s not what happened here. The ball was way past the fielder when the obstruction took place. He was no longer “fielding” he was now just “obstructing”. After the ball goes by, the fielder has to get out of the runners way. His rights to occupy that space on the field end when the ball goes by.
Seems unfair, but that is the way the rule is written, and IMHO, it was correctly applied.
And this is from someone pulling for the Sox, BTW.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/656 "2013-10-27T19:35:59Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#):
>
> The words “very likely” are not in the rule, they are in an _example_ given in the rule. An example is not meant to cover every possibility of every case.
It is absolutely in the rule, right there in the rule book. And you’re missing the point, I think. I’m not suggesting it covers every possibility. I’m saying a rule that describes a scenario as “very likely” to be obstruction must mean that it sometimes isn’t. I’m suggesting this scenario where the fielder had no opportunity to get out of the way must be an exception–if it isn’t, what is?
There’s two parts to my argument: The specific example in the rule–which in fact occurred last night–says this is very likely to be obstruction. Do you agree that MUST mean that it is sometimes NOT obstruction? Everyone seems to be interpreting the rule as if the words “very likely” aren’t there. If they weren’t, I’d agree–no brainer and unambiguously obstruction. But they are there.
The second part: If there are exceptions, last night’s, IMO, must be one. A fielder makes a legitimate stab at the ball, and then has no opportunity to get out of the runner’s way. If that’s not an exception–what is? (No one is answering this one!)
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/657 "2013-10-27T19:36:46Z")
> [@leftfield6](#):
>
> But that’s not what happened here. The ball was way past the fielder when the obstruction took place. He was no longer “fielding” he was now just “obstructing”. After the ball goes by, the fielder has to get out of the runners way. His rights to occupy that space on the field end when the ball goes by.
>
> Seems unfair
Why does it seem unfair?
If fielders were allowed to block the basepaths and obstruct the baserunners to try to prevent them from reaching base, it would substantially alter the game of baseball. If baseball allowed blocking, tripping, tackling, etc., it might be interesting to watch, but it would no longer be baseball as we know it.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/658 "2013-10-27T19:38:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> And you’re missing the point, I think. I’m not suggesting it covers every possibility. I’m saying a rule that describes a scenario as “very likely” to be obstruction must mean that it sometimes isn’t. I’m suggesting this scenario where the fielder had no opportunity to get out of the way must be an exception–if it isn’t, what is?
Why?? The point of the rule isn’t to penalize the fielder, it’s to avoid penalizing the baserunner when something like this happens.
---
### Author:  [@chizzuk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chizzuk)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/659 "2013-10-27T19:39:00Z")
What counts as “fielding?” What if Middlebrooks had knocked the ball down and it had rolled just a few feet away instead of going into LF? Would the act of scrambling over to try to pick it up count as fielding? In that case, would Craig’s hands pushing him down be interference?
I think the rule as written was correctly applied, but it seems to be an inherent flaw of the way it’s written that there was no possible way for Middlebrooks to avoid the call. After missing the ball, his body has to be allowed to occupy some space for a brief period of time, because he has physical mass. He can’t just vanish. Maybe the rule needs to be tweaked.
Of course, the situation would never have existed in the first place if Saltalamacchia hadn’t made a bad, poorly-considered throw and if Middlebrooks hadn’t stupidly prioritized keeping his foot on the bag over catching the ball.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [October 27, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978/660 "2013-10-27T19:41:09Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#):
>
> Why?? The point of the rule isn’t to penalize the fielder, it’s to avoid penalizing the baserunner when something like this happens.
Two questions: Do you agree that the rule allows for exceptions, that the scenario that occurred doesn’t NECESSARILY have to be obstruction? Second, if so, what is a hypothetical exception you might envision?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978.md?page=32)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mlb-2013-postseason/669978.md?page=34)