We don't nearly appreciate the extent to which luck decides who wins or loses baseball games. We think we do, because we look at BABIP and Pythagorean records and such, but really there are layers upon layers of luck—luck being the loaded word; good fortune being perhaps the more accurate phrase, and more generous—that we either don't notice or don't anticipate. The ending to this game would fall under the luck we don't anticipate.
By now, you've made up your mind on whether the obstruction call that granted Allen Craig safe passage home with the winning run was the right call. You're probably so certain of your decision that you can't even imagine a person would dispute your ruling. It's so obvious! How could you miss that? Without a doubt, that was/wasn't obstruction. But, whether the call was right or wrong, we should recognize that the very fact that so many people currently disagree with each other about it is evidence that it's not nearly that simple. It very easily could have gone the other way, right or wrong.
The rulebook, for example, is extremely specific on this play. At the end of Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment, it lays out this exact scenario: "For example: if an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner." It's so specific. It is as though this play happened and they wrote the rule immediately after with a play exactly like this one in mind. And the rule they came up with is… ambivalent! "He very likely has obstructed the runner." Not "he has," but "he very likely has." Probably. Maybe. Up to you to decide. Use your best judgment. What am I, God?
A few statements of fact:
1. Will Middlebrooks attempted to field a ball he had the right to field.
2. Upon failing to field that ball, he was in a position to impede Allen Craig's attempt to score.
3. Allen Craig has a generally acknowledged right to attempt to score.
4. He (Craig) did not do anything unusual or unnatural. He stood up, ran toward home, and was thwarted.
5. Therefore, Middlebrooks has "very likely" obstructed the runner.
Here's the GIF that you've probably already seen, from @cjzero:
Now, in the defense of uncertainty:
1. A reasonable person might consider Middlebrooks to have still been in the act of attempting to field the ball. He had not moved on to another action. He had not failed to move, with unnecessary delay. If—and, frankly, we're going to get into hypotheticals not because I want to convince you of anything but because they are the best way to grapple with the consequences of our assumptions—Middlebrooks had leapt for the ball, surely his descent to earth would still be considered part of the act of attempting to field the ball. So, the umpires are forced to grapple with difficult decision no. 1: When does Middlebrooks stop being a defender and start being an obstruction? When does he go from lying on the ground to "continu(ing) to lie on the ground," as specified in the rule? Is it the second a ball is one inch past him? Maybe! But that's an awfully demanding requirement, and one that might make an umpire look at the "very likely" portion of that rule and conclude that the defender acting in good faith falls into the implied exceptions.
2. Upon failing to field that ball, he was in a position to impede Allen Craig's attempt to score because of Allen Craig himself. Maybe, at least. Here's the frame-by-frame of the play:
Frame 1: Middlebrooks reaches for the throw, which is leading him away from the base.
Frame 2: Middlebrooks begins to lean.
Frame 3: Middlebrooks, standing in front of the base, appears to have his glove hit by Craig, sliding.
Frame 4: It's not easy to say conclusively, but it appears that Craig's upper body is now colliding with Middlebrooks' arm, and his left leg or even right knee might have made contact with Middlebrooks' left leg.
Frame 5: Middlebrooks topples over, putting all the parties in place for an obstruction call. In Timothy Burke's GIF of the trip itself, Middlebrooks' body is lying on the ground at an angle that suggests he was spun a bit, like by Craig. Naturally, Craig has every right to slide into the base. Just like Middlebrooks has every right to dive for a ball in an attempt to field it. Does it change the math from step 1, when we try to determine when Middlebrooks gave up his rights, if Craig is himself the reason for Middlebooks ending up in an obstructing position? Remember: "very likely has obstructed." The rules want us to consider these things.
3. Yes, Allen Craig has a right to score, by running in a baseline toward his next base. And, yes, the baseline is that line which he himself sets when he starts toward the base. Allen Craig was running in his baseline and Will Middlebrooks lifted his feet up and blocked that baseline. But Middlebrooks, in a more generous interpretation of the play, lifted his feet away from the more common baseline. For all we know, he was trying to clear a space for Craig, and was simply unfortunate that Craig was running a somewhat unconventional route.
Now, the natural response to this is a great response: Intent doesn't matter. (This is a great response as nearly all defenses of the obstruction call are great defenses; it being the case, after all, that an obstruction call is completely reasonable! As would be, many intelligent people would argue, a non-obstruction call.) Intent doesn't matter in sports officiating, but of course intent does matter sometimes. Falling down in soccer isn't against the rules; falling down on purpose, to deceive the officials, is. Throwing a baseball that hits a batter isn't against the rules; doing so intentionally very much is. The neighborhood play at second base is simply a fielder failing to touch the bag but doing so intentionally, and being granted leniency by the knowing umpires. (The word intention appears in the rulebook 47 times.) Heck, umpires often fail to call a strike when the pitch, though in the zone, is not where the pitcher and catcher had intended it. That last one is a lousy part of umpiring that should make you mad, but it establishes a basic fact about umpires: they consider intent. It is perfectly consistent with how umpires do their jobs, and how the game is played. In a situation like this, where the rule is intentionally ambiguous, then it is arguably truer to the nature of the sport for intent to be considered.
I lean toward calling obstruction, and I lean toward cleaning up the wording in the rulebook before this happens again and/or starts getting exploited by runners who realize that the rulebook apparently gives them exploitably broad rights. Of course, if runners started abusing this—intentionally running into defenders on the ground—I assume umpires would stop granting them bases. Intent, after all, matters to umpires.
My point is not that the umpires made the right call, or the wrong call. It is that they very easily could have made either call. The only wrong opinion in this case is certainty, because the rulebook very specifically leaves room for uncertainty. It was the Cardinals' good fortune that it went their way, and the Red Sox' bad fortune that it didn't go their way. Will Middlebrooks didn't do anything wrong. Allen Craig didn't do anything wrong. There's no morally right solution in this rulebook, so Dana DeMuth and Jim Joyce chose the morally neutral one: They more or less guessed.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Here's mine: The only wrong opinion in this case is the one that believes Workman should have been batting in the bottom of the 8th instead of Napoli.
I agree that, _once he got himself into that position-, there was nothing he could do. But he (and the Red Sox) did not have to be in that position. Salty could have made a good throw; Middlebrooks could have come off the bag to make the catch. They got themselves into a no-win position, and, as usually happens in no-win positions, they lost.
The shame is it detracts from what was one hell of a play by Pedroia.
And its useful noting that Craig was only in that position at all because he was hobbled by an injury caused by an umpire's obstruction.
This game is very likely over as soon as the ball gets away down the line. Either Middlebrooks gets out of the way or Craig avoids him and scores, or Middlebrooks very likely obstructs the runner.
I do find the discussion of when the fielder goes from "laying" to "continuing to lay." He wasn't down on the ground for that long...
The ONLY way the Red Sox come out on top in that situation, after making that poor throw, is if the umpire does NOT call obstruction on that play, and Middlebrooks prevents the runner from scoring by blocking him. That's the only positive Red Sox outcome - the play being decided in their favor by the umpire, not anything that happened on the field, because the Red Sox are the ones who made the bad plays.
It would be much more unfair if the umpire decided in favor of the Red Sox; the Cardinals would be unfairly punished for things completely out of control the Red Sox would be absolved of making errors that usually cost you runs for no particular reason.
Then only catch there is that if the Red Sox had the call go in their favor, the game would not have ended. That's one thing that has so many people up in arms, but really its immaterial to what the correct decision on the field is.
I think most people are ignoring the huge problems if the rule was not called the way it was last night - it could become impossible to advance on overthrows on close plays at the bases since the fielder could block the runners. Overthrow on a stolen base attempt at second base - just have the SS/2B fall on top of the runner in his "attempt" to get the ball. Bad throw on a pickoff at first - same thing, just get in the runner's way so he can't move to second.
(Amazing how many rules are their "fault"...)
Huh? Middlebrooks makes every effort to not obstruct the runner either coming to third or going home. He is never blocking the path either to third or home. Craig's first step is basically back towards second - just a clumsy stumble and he gets bailed out by Joyce.
Another brutal call by Joyce in a big spot. Let the players decide the game.
And Sam? Go take some umpire training. Not a single trained umpire at any level would see this play any differently than the MLB crew saw it. There was no guessing.
Lifting your legs like that is not something one would normally do in the process of getting up or out of the way.
The Red Sox lost both of their games with ill considered throws to third base.
I too think Jim Joyce got it right, which I was glad to see after he took so much grief for the missed call in the Armando Gallarraga would-have-been perfect game.
Actually, the rule book is quite clear on this one. I quote: "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." However unreasonable it may seem, that is the specified rule.
The catch was a do-or-die play. By missing it, he left himself in an obstructing position.
The way for Middlebrooks to avoid obstructing the runner in this situation is to CATCH THE FRIGGIN' BALL.
Think about it - if Joyce doesn't make the call, is there any controversy whatsoever about the ruling?
Brutal, brutal call.
1. Millar: Middlebrook's job is to catch that ball. He froze. If he moves with and towards the throw, the ball stays in the infield.
2. Reynolds: This play happens more than we think, but not at third base. It's a more common play with the middle infield and a baserunner. We don't remember/notice as much because the runner is awarded third, not home.
My observation - Joyce didn't hesitate, he made the call as soon as he saw Craig stumble over Middlebrooks. No matter which side you believe, Joyce got it right - he was decisive and called it instantly, not moments later. You won't see Joyce in tears over this one.
I have no dog in this fight, and I find both Sox and Cardinals fans tediously annoying and their actual teams fairly likeable.
This entire article is an attempt to bring into the discussion things that simply don't matter in order to muddle the waters.
The umpires guessed? No, they did not. They don't feel that way. I'd imagine if you took this into a courtroom or an arbitration setting, the people ruling wouldn't feel that way, either. Of course, I have no way to prove this.
You exhibit all the worst arguments out there -- first, immediately disarming anyone certain as if they were biased. Since you are arguing in favor of uncertainty, you establish yourself as the reasonable one, and inherently target anyone certain as mockable. As you do in your entire second paragraph. Just because someone is certain does not they are so because they root for one team or because they aren't as even minded as you. Sometimes it is because they are right, or can actually make a decision.
Your argument for "it could go either way" is an unfuriating argument because uncertainty does not mean you are right -- and the open-mindedness the uncertainty argument implies gives the arguer often undeserved credibility.
To back yourself up, you begin to make pointless arguments -- Craig caused Middlebrooks to fall! Is there anything in the rulebook to argue that should have an effect on the call? Anything at all?
In soccer, we evaluate intent! Soccer is irrelevent.
In other parts of the rulebook we evaluate intent! Actually, by the fact that it is specifically mentioned elsewhere and not here tells us intent is most likely irrelevant.
And the neighborhood play isn't even in the rulebook, is it? Why is it here? It's something the umpires consistently allow because it is presumed to reduce injury. It's widely accepted and known. None of that applies to this call.
The rule is fairly clear. There's some wiggle. I suppose they could have called it the other way with some roundabout explanation, but it was called according to the rulebook. It wasn't a fifty-fifty play.
(Morally neutral? What does that even mean? Was there a call out there in the universe here that was morally evil?)
It certainly wasn't a guess. Many of your arguments make sense for why the rule should be changed, but not why you'd call it differently.
The rule is clear (actually there are several rules that make this same point) - base paths belong to base runners, and it is the fielders' job to clear that path. The rules do not care HOW fielders get in the way of that path (unless runners do something illegal to put them there), only THAT they do.
Once we acknowledge that point, pretty much each of Sam's points crumble (particularly point #2, which is not at all germane to this discussion - as long as Craig is make a legal slide, it does not matter whether this is what upends Middlebrooks). I appreciate Sam's attempts to add nuance to the ruling, but I feel it's too clever by half.
This article didn't offer any insight into the play. It was kind of the equivalent of a 1000-word shrug.
And that's OK, I suppose. You guys write many many many many many many articles that are insightful and engaging and entertaining that make baseball all that much better to watch and think about. This just wasn't one of them.
A) Craig knocks down Middlebrooks as he slides into the base, and the ball gets away
B) Craig gets up and stumbles while looking back over his shoulder to find the ball
C) Craig rebalances himself by putting his left hand on the Middlebrooks' lower back, using it to launch himself forward
D) Craig stumbles again as he tries to leap Middlebrooks' lower legs
Of these four steps, "D" is obstruction by Middlebrooks. The previous three steps are krafty baserunning by Craig.
I don't believe that is correct. The rule book defines two ways that a fielder can be "in the act of fielding a ball."
One, it is a batted ball. That one does not apply. It was a thrown ball at this point.
Two, it is a thrown ball. OK, this one applies. So let's see what the rule book says about that:
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.
So, the umpire may consider receiving a throw to also be "in the act of fielding a ball," BUT the fielder has to be "about to receive a thrown ball." The refers to the times that a fielder is waiting for the ball and blocks the runner. In this, he is not waiting for the ball when the "block" occurs.
Finally, even if we were to concede that he was, "in the act of fielding a ball" buy virtue of being "about to receive a thrown ball," the end of that comment applies:
"After a fielder has made at attempt to field the ball and missed, he can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball."
So, no, I don't think it is reasonable to consider Middlebrooks to still be in the act of fielding a ball, at least according to the rules, which is the only think that matters.
Runners accidently run into fielders making a play all the time.
We don't sit here and debate the intentions of the runner or whether the runner could have done something to avoid doing so. If he hits the fielder, he's out.
The onus is on the runner as long as the ball is being fielded and on the fielder after the fielding chance passes.
The rule is pretty clear here. That was obstruction.
You could debate whether the obstruction was enough to prevent the runner from scoring.
I don't know how anyone can say that standing, falling to the ground and standing up again (1 sec)doesn't take at least enough time to make the difference in 2-3 feet of someone sliding at the plate unless they have some vested interest in the outcome that colors their view.
Whether middlebrooks could or could. It do anything is irrelevant. He impeded the runners ability to advance and therefore by rule the runner is awarded that base. Had middlebrooks not tripped up Craig he would've scored, but that doesn't matter, once the obstruction is called the runner is awarded the base.
Aside from redsox fans I'm surprised this is even a discussion.
But sephrath says: "Once the obstruction is called the runner is awarded the base."
Does anyone know which comment is correct?
So in this case, Buckgunn is correct.
Whether you agree or not that Middlebrooks obstructed Craig, the umps nailed the call as far as letting the play finish before making their call.
So we're saying that if you're the runner, and you know obstruction has been called--which I believe Craig did not--you've got to be aware that you won't automatically be awarded the next base?
In layman's terms, is the 'other' type of obstruction what happens when a runner in a rundown runs into a fielder in the basepath and is awarded the base? If so, I have qualms with that one. I've seen occassions when runners seem to deliberately try to run into a fielder in hopes of gaining an obstruction call. Would that be a case in which 'intent' should be taken into account?
And from what I understand the umps DO have leeway to factor in flopping (that's where the "very likely" comes into play in the rules - a runner can't himself do something illegal to goad obstruction). But the umps can still blow it. Case in point:
http://www.baseballnation.com/2012/6/14/3085641/devin-mesoraco-lou-marson-reds-indians-obstruction
And that doesn't even taske into account the fact that in the English language the word "act" absolutely requires intent! Without intent it's an "accident," not an "act!"
The ruling therefore was wrong on two counts!
Sam:
A few points I did not see in your article or the comments:
1. Allen Craig is a major league baseball player with unfettered access to the best base running instruction in the entire world.
2. Sliding is a skill that all baseball players are taught
in Little League &/or high school.
3. If the coach @ 3B sees a close tag play at 3B & he knows what he is doing, he instructs the runner coming from 2B to slide past 3B on the outfield side of the base(to avoid a tag)& then to roll over & reach back for the base with the right hand.
4. When sliding into a potential tag @ 2B or 3B the runner must run one step beyond the imaginary line between 2B & 3B, & then slide by extending his left leg, tucking his right foot under his left knee & leaning back (again to avoid the tag).
5. It is obvious from the first frame above that the throw from the catcher to 3B was on target.
6. It is also obvious that Middlebrooks was in perfect position to field the throw(left foot against the side of the base facing home plate w/glove hand extended toward the pitcher)
7. It is also obvious that Craig made no effort to avoid the tag; instead he slid into Middlebrooks despite having a clear path to 3B.
8. By turning onto his left hip & sticking his knees out he struck Middlebrooks glove hand/arm & knocked him off balance & prevented Middlebrooks from fielding the throw. THIS IS INTERFERENCE WITH A FIELDER ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY ON A THROWN BALL & CRAIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT IMMEDIATELY.
9. By executing a slide that would provoke laughter from my high school softball players, Craig rendered himself unable to get up & proceed to home plate unimpeded.
10. If he slid into 3B correctly, Craig would have wound up in foul territory & thus avoided the stumbling, bumbling play that ensued (not to mind the lovely strawberry that he is now sporting on his left thigh.)
11. After the ball got away from Middlebrooks, Craig took A FULL STEP inside the 3B foul line to begin his run to home plate. He thus was also the proximate (sole?) cause of the second collision with Middlebrooks.
CONCLUSION: Base runner executes a coyote ugly slide @ 3B
& crashes into the third baseman who is clearly not blocking his path & is awarded home plate because the runner then improperly steps away from "the base line" & stumbles into the poor unsuspecting third baseman a second time.
WOW, THAT'S GOOD UMPIRING!
PAT O'DAY
I wonder how many internet posts are made on this play if obstruction had not been called?
I'm guessing a dropoff of at least two orders of magnitude.
Clear spot for a non-call to be made.
Officiating 101 - you are doing your job well if no one is discussing your performance after the game.
Unless you are pretending that you've never heard of a runner sliding hard (or barrelling) into home attempting to make the fielder drop the ball!
As long as he is going for the base, the runner is NEVER called out for interference.
So why do you think the rule would be any different at third bad?
It's not. There was no "runner's interference."