<p>As I watched in real time, I thought the call was correct, too. I shouted “obstruction” before the play at the plate occurred.</p>
<p>Come on RS, shake it off!</p>
<p>I’m “only” a high school umpire, and I screamed “obstruction” as soon as it happened. Whether or not Middlebrooks lifted his legs that second time purposely or not, there’s no real gray area here. That’s the rule, whether it was intentional or not. And Middlebrooks was inserted for defense, ironically. He impeded the runner, who clearly would have scored but for the obstruction.</p>
<p>^^ Do you umpire softball or baseball? </p>
<p>The Red Sox have been more aggressive with their throws in the World Series ( RF throwing to 1B on a base hit, and two ill advised throws from home to 3B). Both teams have turned it up a notch and are playing tremendous ball. I wish the Sox didn’t give up their running game.</p>
<p>For the backseat umps out there, if Middlebrooks had laid motionless, would obstruction still been called? I mean, he couldn’t burrow into the ground or teleport his body.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t matter. Once that ball went past him into left field, his “right to field the ball” is gone and Craig’s right to the baseline comes under protection. The fielder was in the runner’s baseline without the baseball. That is obstruction.</p>
<p>It wouldn’t have been obstruction if the runner wasn’t impeded. We can’t know what would have happened if Middlebrooks was smart enough to keep his feet down and stay out of the way so the runner could get over him cleanly. </p>
<p>But the main fault is the mental breakdown by Saltalamacchia. He was quoted as saying the runner was only half way to 3rd but the play shows the runner beat the throw and, more importantly, when it’s the home team at bat in a tie game in the 9th inning one of the very first lessons you’re taught as a child is to be careful with the ball. Heaving it down the 3rd base line is the opposite of being careful. And this happened for the 2nd game in a row. That speaks to player and manager failure because they should have been reminded to be careful with the ball - and if they were, then that was an even worse play than the terrible play it was.</p>
<p>I have no horse in this race, so the outcome does not matter to me, but wouldn’t Craig actually have to touch the plate for the run to count? It appears that he is called safe without even touching home plate.</p>
<p>Not an umpire but the mother of one 
but I think once obstruction is called the next base is “awarded” to the runner. Sure, technically, he should touch the plate in this case, but it’s a technicality no one is going to call.</p>
<p>Yea, the base is awarded. He didn’t even need to run home.</p>
<p>There is a famous incident from the early days, 1908, when Fred Merkle, a 19 year old rookie for the Giants, never touched 2nd when a run was singled in to win a game and the Cubs called for the ball, stepped on 2nd and the run was erased because Merkle was out. Called Merkle’s Boner. This meant the game was a tie … seriously, because of darkness and the crowd on the field … the Cubs won the replay and won the pennant by a game.</p>
<p>And then the Cubs won the World Series versus the Tigers AND that was the last time the Cubs won!</p>
<p>The news reports keep saying the game was won on an obstruction call by the umpire. No one ever says that a game ended because an umpire ruled that a ball that left the park was a home run. </p>
<p>The Sox lost because of a bad throw by Saltalamacchia, and bad fielding from Middlebrooks, which resulted in Middlebrooks falling down and obstructing Craig. The umpire just ruled the obvious, as he would rule any other event, such as a fair or foul ball.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>base is not automatically awarded. Home plate ump has to judge if he would have scored if not obstructed. He could be called out if the ump assumes he would not have scored without the obstruction.</p>
<p>Technically, the call is correct the way the rule is written, but a no call there is the correct call IMO. Middlebrooks can’t just disappear…incidental contact should result in a non call. The rule as written needs to be revised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no, it wasn’t obvious…Actually, it looked like Craig was falling down before any contact with Middlebrooks. It was indeed an umps judgement call that won the game for the Cards…should have been a non call.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baseball isn’t about what the players meant to do, or could have done. It’s about what they do. If you swing and miss, but meant to hit a home run, do you get to run the bases? Most times, the 3rd basement doesn’t fall down trying to catch a ball. Middlebrooks did. Too bad for him, but the umpire doesn’t get to decide that since he meant to catch the ball that Craig is out at third, or since he didn’t mean to fall on his face that Craig didn’t trip over him.</p>
<p>^sorry, that just doesn’t make sense…if a player can’t dive for a throw without getting an obstruction call against him(especially when the runner takes a step back towards 2b instead of a direct path to home)then the rule is badly written. Incidental contact occurs in all sports, no way that should decide a WS game. Horrible way to decide a WS game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He can dive all he wants. The “play” is over. The next “play” involved him being in the basepath of a runner. He didn’t have the ball therefore he cannot be in the basepath. That is obstruction.</p>
<p>It really isn’t that hard of a call…</p>
<p>Again, Middlebrooks put his legs in the air and that tripped up the runner, who fell down. If he’d simply laid on the ground, I think no call is made. </p>
<p>When the runner hit the ground, the umpire made the call. If the runner had got up, started home and then returned to 3rd, I would expect he’d be awarded home. The rule doesn’t require the runner try no matter what. It falls to the umpire’s discretion. </p>
<p>IMHO, Middlebrooks put up his legs to impede the runner. A very, very, very bad play. On the order of Alex Rodriguez slapping the ball out of the glove at 1st. The throw was Saltalamacchia’s incredibly dumb fault and the obstruction was Middlebrooks. If this were football or hockey or some other sport in the coach runs the team with real authority, both would be punished - benched or held out for some period of time - to teach them screwing up has consequences. This being baseball, I expect some blather about how Ross is a better choice at catcher, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that is not correct. Go look at the play again, Middlebrooks’ legs had nothing to do with Craig tripping…no contact was ever made with his legs.</p>
<p>No, if he went back to third, he would not have been awarded home. That is not how the rule works. You have that all wrong. In fact, if he stopped between home and third not sure what was going on and was tagged out, the ump would have called an out. This happened to Tejada in a play off game against the Sox many years ago.</p>
<p>Once the 3b ump called obstruction, it was up to the home plate ump to determine if the runner would have scored if no obstruction had occurred. Most of the time they deem the runner would have scored if the play is fairly close. The runner has to attempt to score on that play, no automatic base is awarded on an obstruction call.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the best call would have been a non call .I do understand the rule and how it is written, it needs to be revised.</p>
<p>let me ask you this…how is this different from a catcher attempting to throw to 3B on a steal attempt to have to throw around the batter?. The batter does not have to move…why?..because he can’t just disappear, just like Middlebrooks could not disappear after diving for a throw. The catcher has to clear the batter to make the throw. So if a runner deserves a clear path to home, why doesn’t a catcher deserve a clear path to throw the ball and not have the batter in his way? Very similar situations. Both the batter and in this case, Middlebrooks, can’t just disappear.</p>
<p>I remember back in 2006 when an ump made a call that denied a Detroit pitcher a perfect game. The ump went home and cried about it afterwards. </p>
<p>With such a high-stakes situation like this, this ump probably feels awful as well. He did what he thought was right and what correlates with the rules that he knows by heart, and that’s that. The Red Sox have got to be more careful.</p>
<p>I guess you should take it up with MLB, dusk. As currently written, it was a good call, so, no, the best call wouldn’t have been a non-call.</p>
<p>It was the same umpire who called obstruction last night and denied the Detroit pitcher the perfect game.</p>