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.
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:
In other words, you can block the runner to try to make a play, but if you block him, you’d better make it.
This blog post seems to be aimed at guys like you: Jim Joyce had to call obstruction, because baseball isn’t football
It argues this was not and should not be a judgment call, the way it might be in the NFL.
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.
wonder what the call would have been if craig used middlebrooks keister as a launching pad, and sprang off of it.
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:
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.
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.
Catch the ball, so that he’d be in the act of fielding. 
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.
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.
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!)
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.
Why?? The point of the rule isn’t to penalize the fielder, it’s to avoid penalizing the baserunner when something like this happens.
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.
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?