The runner was hindered. Period. That's all it takes. In this case, it happened because the feet came up. But if the fielder had left his feet down and the runner had been hindered, it still would have been obstruction. 2.00 OBSTRUCTION. And if the runner had not been hindered (i.e., he cleanly stepped over the legs) then obstruction would not be called.
And since the runner wasn't being played on at the time of the obstruction, the ball remains live, the umpire decides how much protection the runner is going to get. (The award of the next base is NOT automatic in this case.) When the play is made at the plate, the umpires rule that the runner would have been safe had the obstruction not occurred. Runner is then awarded the plate, run scores, game over. Rule 7.06(b).
[By the way, Joyce made the call, not DeMuth.]
Yes, good call, if it was the other way where there was no obstruction call, then Cards would have a better case then the Red sox do with the call.
It may not be right, but the rule states it and thats how it should have been handled. Of course Red Sox will make their own case he wasn't in the baseline, but once emotions get settled, they may look back and think that they would have argued if that happened to them and they didn't get the call.
Yes. Absolutely.
No obstruction and he scores at home easily.
Obstruction and then if the runner chooses not to advance, stays at 3rd, would have been an interesting scenario for everyone to complain about especially St. Louis.
This scenario, where the runner chooses to advance home is clearly to be ruled as it was.
This is not a judgment call. Its the fundamentally fair call regardless what the score, inning, etc.
Middlebrooks was blocking basepath and was no longer attempting to field a ball. This is a textbook example of obstruction. Intent does not matter. The fact there was nothing Middlebrook could do to avoid obstruction does not matter. Had Craig not tripped over him we can all agree he would have easily scored and ended the game.
What I saw was Middlebrooks' legs blocking the basepath, not allowing the runner to leave 3rd base (remember, he fell down), thats why they allowed the run to count even though the catcher tagged him.
The call at the plate was correct, however they allowed the run to score because of the obstruction.
Rule 2.00 of the official rules of Major League Baseball defines obstruction as:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction...
Intentional or not...he "obstructed" the path of the base runner. Umps got it right.
I didn't get to see the game live, but woke up to recap and it appears the runner would have made it to home-base if the guy at 3rd base didn't trip him up by sitting right in-front of the run path. I believe it was the right call from what I see on recap.
Yes. I don't need to have an opinion but you can't stick your legs up to trip a runner and not expect to get called for it.
Yes. Tough place to make that call. Gutsy by the umpires, but correct.
Yes, because DeMuth (the home plate umpire) decided so.
