It is in an example of the rule. That’s what the part "For example: " means…
I disagree that if there are any exceptions, last night has to be one. How about if the runner intentionally holds the fielder down for three or four seconds while the play occurs elsewhere, then tries to run and trips over the player he was holding? Or perhaps it wasn’t intentional. Maybe the runner passed out briefly, who knows? Maybe the writers are just acknowledging that they can’t possibly think of
every weird possibility, and giving the umpires a little discretion to handle a highly exceptional occurrence. But a fielder laying in the base path wouldn’t be one.
This is a semantic quibble. It’s guidance on how to apply the rule, in the rule book. Call it whatever you want.
That’s fine. My opinion is that last night’s is exactly such an exception, but that is, well, my opinion. But since you acknowledge (finally, somebody!) that the rule permits exceptions, can you think of a hypothetical exception that you would agree with?
Do you acknowledge that under a plain reading of the rule, it’s obstruction? There are just the three requirements I gave previously, and all three requirements were met?
How often do you see this play in pro baseball? Seriously, the answer is, like, never, right?
I have been going to baseball games, major and minor league, since the late sixties, and I doubt I have ever seen an obstruction call in person. I’ve probably seen one or two on TV, but don’t remember them.
In contrast, I can think of multiple times when I’ve seen wild throws to a base and the runner moves up. Funny thing, the fielder just about always–no, let me rephrase that, always–manages to avoid falling down right in front of the runner. Whether it’s because they leave the base to try to corral the throw, or because they set themselves up in a different position to receive the throw, or because of some other reason, they avoid obstructing the runner.
I feel bad for Middlebrooks, who I don’t think was *intending *to block Craig at all (not that intent matters), and I agree he was kind of screwed once he was stretched out on the ground with Craig behind him. But he’s supposed to avoid being in that situation, same as everybody else somehow manages to do on similar plays.
I don’t disagree with those, but I’d say there’s a fourth requirement, as provided by the “very likely” words: The umpire needs to agree there’s no basis for an exception. If I were the ump, I wouldn’t have made that call, and the rule (yes, I am including that example as rulebook guidance, residing as it does in the rulebook) gives me that latitude.
Sorry, I thought that was hyperbole. Not important, though. We both agree (I think) that there are possible exceptions. We just disagree what those might be.
I think part of the problem is that you’re seeing the obstruction call as penalizing Middlebrook. But it isn’t. The call is just removing the time penalty Craig incurred by tripping over Middlebrook. That’s why intent is irrelevant. The base runner is entitled to an open path to run the bases.
I agree, and this is the point I was trying to make above (Post 658). I suspect some posters here are falsely seeing this as analogous to a personal foul called on a defender in a sport like basketball.
No, intent is largely irrelevant. The question is what constitutes an acceptable exception. To me, if the fielder was making a legitimate play, and has no opportunity to get out of the way, the ump has the latitude to not call obstruction. If he had the opportunity to get out of the way, it’s obstruction even if that wasn’t the fielder’s intention. To me, that’s the only reasonable reading of “he continues to lie on the ground.” IMO, Middlebrook lying prone was all part of a single action that occurred in split seconds, real time. “Continuing to lie there” implies to me he could have done something different after the ball passed. Middlebrook could not. A too-strict reading of this means Middlebrook shouldn’t have tried to field the ball at all, considering the details after the fact, IMO.
Yeah, I wasn’t watching the game, but after watching the video it was clearly an obstruction that delayed the runner just long enough for the ball to beat him.
For the record, I hate both teams, so I don’t have a rooting interest.
As I said further up the thread, the way Middlebrook avoids the obstruction call is by making the play, and/or not falling down and impeding the runner’s path after he doesn’t.
There absolutely should not have been a way for Middlebrooks to avoid the call once he failed to field the ball cleanly.
He could have avoided the call by not standing partway in foul territory before the throw (which was the reason he ended up diving and laying out). He could have avoided the call by fielding the ball. But after that, nothing he can do makes any difference. He obstructs the runner by total accident, which means he obstructs the runner.
Having said that, I do think intent matters for the runner. If there was any change to the rules it would be based on that. I can imagine a scenario where a runner intentionally runs into an opposing player he could have avoided with no negative effect, without violating any rules of the basepath. Maybe something could be done about that.
But it would have no effect here anyway, because from replays it is clear that Craig did not intentionally trip over Middlebrooks, and Middlebrooks was also covering enough ground that it would have slowed Craig down to jump over him. So the call was right, and would remain right under any reasonable change to the rules imo.
Then with due respect, either you’d be a very bad umpire or you haven’t done a very good job of explaining why this circumstance deserve an exception. Middlebrooks obstructed Craig, and rather obviously so.
Your position appear to be that this case should be an exception because Middlebrooks had previously tried to make a play. But, frankly, that’s not a very well presented exception.
To occupy a position because he had made a play there in the past is not only not something allowed by the rule but indeed, the rules are rather quite specific in stating a fielder has the right to occupy a space WHEN he is fielding a ball, and is absolutely specific in stating that right ceases to exist afterwards. You’re focusing on the “Very likely” wording, but ignoring the previous part of the rule, which seems to go out of its way to remind the reader that a fielder cannot be in the act of fielding after the ball has gone by.
To my mind, it’s on you to explain why this is an exception. Given that the scenario is more or less word for word what the rule describes as being obstruction, can you explain, using the rulebook, some sort of precedent, or an observation of what happened on the field, WHY this is an exception? You don’t sound like a voice of reason at all, because you aren’t really presenting any reasons. You seem to be presenting the argument that there is a “Range” of possibilities from travesty-level deliberate obstruction to pure accident… but the rulebook doesn’t say anything about a range. The rulebook seems solely interested in whether or not a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball.
it was so fast. so very, very, fast. i think it took everyone (except pitcher, baseman and ump) a bit to figure out what had happened. the batter looked gobsmacked.
bizarre is always the watch word when it comes to a red sox series.
