World Series Obstruction Is Correct Call, But Should It Be?

For the second postseason in a row in Major League Baseball a controversial call by an umpire that was mostly the correct call (you could argue that the infield fly rule called in the 2012 National League Wild Card game was a bad call) has played a huge role in an incredibly important game.

Game three of the World Series on Saturday night (Oct. 26) ended with the St. Louis Cardinals defeating the Boston Red Sox and taking a 2-1 lead in the series thanks to an obstruction called on Red Sox third baseman Will Middlebrooks for impeding Cardinals baserunner Allen Craig by third base umpire Jim Joyce.

Here’s the rule, as it reads in the official MLB rulebook:

Rule 2.00
OBSTRUCTION is 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.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) 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. For example: 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.

Many on Saturday night and afterward were claiming the obstruction call to be a bad call by Joyce, which is understandable given the rarity of the call, the circumstances of the game and the common sense aspect of it all. However, those people claiming the call to be a bad or wrong call are simply wrong. Jim Joyce made the right call according to the official MLB rule stated above.

In fact, the actual example given in the rule book is almost exactly what happened at the end of game three. Middlebrooks dove for an errant throw by Red Sox catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia that ended up in left field. However, when Craig made his way to home after the ball went into the outfield Middlebrooks was still lying on the ground in front of Craig.

Sure, Middlebrooks was essentially in a no man’s land and did not appear to knowingly (although some people debate this) do anything to attempt to impede Craig’s progress to home. However, intent is not a factor as to whether or not a defensive player has obstructed a baserunner. Thus, Middlebrooks being in the wrong place at the wrong time was going to be obstructing no matter what – whether he lay still, kicked his legs into the air or stood up and did the hokey-pokey. By rule, Middlebrooks obstructed Craig. Craig was by rule awarded the next base, which was home plate and as a result he was the winning run of the game. It became the first World Series game in the history of baseball to end on an obstruction call, which most people seem to agree is not the greatest way to end such an important game, especially one as exciting as game three was.

Jim Joyce was correct. But, I don’t believe the Major League Baseball rulebook is, or rather it shouldn’t be. This is where I think a case can be made. Arguing a call was bad when it was explicitly right by the rulebook is pointless. Arguing whether or not the rule should be a rule, like in this case, has validity.

Obstruction is a rule that is over 100 years old in baseball. It’s not something you see a whole lot, though, and until Saturday night it’s not something I can recall ever seeing in such an important game, especially to end that game. Obstruction has been around more than a century, but it took something as catastrophic as game three on Saturday night for me to realize that it’s faulty.

The rule is faulty or a bad rule in my opinion as it’s worded because it seemingly gives an unfair advantage to the offensive team.

How so?

To best answer this question I’ll have to do so with another question … What was Will Middlebrooks supposed to do in that situation?

If Will Middlebrooks gets called for obstruction either way by the rulebook whether he just lies there or kicks his feet or does the hokey-pokey how can the rule be fair to the defensive team? It’s not. Essentially you are penalizing a player and a team for just trying their best to stop a ball from getting past them and into the outfield.

What happens when Craig and Middlebrooks make contact as Craig tries to race home is incidental contact. It’s not intentional contact. Intentional contact would be cheating or attempting to take advantage of a rule. Therefore, intentional contact should be (and is) covered under the obstruction rule. Incidental contact should be considered just a part of the game – something that happens in the course of playing hard – similar to if a baserunner is hit with a thrown ball while on the basepaths. In my opinion, incidental contact between a defensive player not in the process of making a play, because he was previously in the process of trying to make a play (Middlebrooks on Saturday night) and the baserunner attempting to advance should not be considered obstruction.

Some would say that what I’m advocating would instead of being an unfair advantage to the offensive team be the exact opposite. To those people I would say that’s not necessarily the case at all. After all, Craig should’ve scored on a ball thrown to left field despite the incidental contact with Middlebrooks, but wouldn’t have had the obstruction not been called because of 1) being not 100 percent healthy 2) being slow 3) good hustle on part of the Red Sox defense.

People would also say that determining intent on obstruction calls would leave umpires forced to make judgment calls. My two answers to this are 1) wouldn’t that be better than unfairly ruling in favor of the offense? and 2) don’t umpires already make judgment calls all of the time whether it’s by calling balls and strikes or with bang-bang plays at bases?

Nothing about the obstruction call on Saturday night felt right to me, even though as clearly stated in the rulebook it was a correct call. It didn’t feel right to me because it felt like one team was unfairly punished because its player had gone all out to try to stop a ball from getting past him. It didn’t feel right, because it felt as if Craig should’ve been able to get around Middlebrooks and score without stumbling anyway. It didn’t feel right because this is a World Series game and whether it’s wrong or right it doesn’t seem like it should end on a faulty rule.

The controversial obstruction call last night, much like the controversial infield fly rule from last season’s playoffs is meant to be a good rule. It’s meant to keep defenses from unfairly taking advantage of offenses. However, because of the seemingly incompleteness of the obstruction rule and the obvious vagueness of the infield fly rule both rules have come into question as to whether or not they should be revised or re-worded.     

If there is one thing that is certain it’s that baseball truly is amazing in that something can happen that you almost never see and make you realize that a rule that is over 100 years old is at best faulty.

National Networks Show Understandable, But Still Irritating Bias Toward Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals

I’ve had a theory about Major League Baseball telecasts for a while. The theory states that every single time the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, likely the most storied rivalry in the history of the game (and sports in general), play each other the game will be nationally televised.

I’ve long theorized that every single Yankees vs. Red Sox game in at least the last decade has likely been televised. Unfortunately, I have no way of finding out whether or not this is indeed a fact. What games have appeared on which networks over the last few seasons is not something you can easily find anywhere, probably because few people honestly give a damn.

However, for the last few seasons I’ve heard a good many people give a damn. These people are, of course, not fans of the Yankees or Red Sox as those fans (and there’s a good many of them sprinkled throughout the entire United States) seem thrilled that many of their favorite team’s games (and every time they play their heated rival) are broadcast nationally. It’s not hard to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan in say Arkansas (where I’m from) because you know your favorite team will have as many as a third of their games all season broadcast. But, if you’re a fan of say the Cleveland Indians or Oakland A’s or Milwaukee Brewers in Arkansas or Nebraska or West Virginia you’re going to have trouble ever seeing your favorite team on television unless you want to shell out major bucks for the baseball television package or MLB.tv online (which many people simply cannot afford). This is a feeling that sucks for a good many a baseball fan in this country, especially when they keep getting the same old teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and other teams like the St. Louis Cardinals crammed down their throats.

There are four networks that currently air MLB games nationally: ESPN, Fox (games are regional, but there’s a small enough selection (unlike say NFL on Fox/CBS) to really matter), TBS and MLB Network – all of these networks are shown on most cable or satellite providers. Almost every day of the week there will be at least one nationally televised baseball game. That’s actually a lot of baseball available to baseball fans around the country, but if you’re not a fan of the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, etc. it can become pretty fatiguing. This is why every Yankees vs. Red Sox game being broadcast nationally can become irritating to non-fans of those teams.

Let’s get this obvious point out of the way. Yes, it makes complete sense for networks to want to show as many Yankees vs. Red Sox games as they can (and those two teams individual games along with Cardinals games) because these fanbases are the largest (and by a good margin) in the country and the network wants viewers, ratings and the advertising dollars that come from them. Baseball, unlike the NFL and NBA, is not a sport that is watched all that much anymore by the casual sports fan. If you’re a Cardinals fan how often would you watch a game involving a team other than the Cardinals in the regular season? Probably, not very often, especially if you have a busy life. This is partially why the networks search for the big fanbases for their games, because a Yankees or Red Sox or Cardinals game will pull in fans from all around the country, whereas a Pittsburgh Pirates or Colorado Rockies game likely would not.

It makes a lot of sense why networks do this, but it also comes off as bothersome to baseball fans because there are a lot of nationally televised games to go around and there are also a lot of other good baseball teams in the country than just the few that are constantly shown on television.

I don’t have the numbers of televised games for the entire 2013 MLB season, because I unfortunately only thought to keep a tally of nationally televised games for the second half of the season. The second half of a baseball season’s nationally televised games are more likely to be skewed than the first half of the season by team records and the playoff hunt, which would’ve made an entire season sample slightly better than just the second half sample. For example, the incredibly hyped before the season Toronto Blue Jays probably had a handful of first half nationally televised games, but didn’t have a single nationally televised game during the second half of the season. In fact, the Blue Jays were one of only four MLB teams to not have a single nationally televised game during the season’s second half with the other three teams understandably being the Houston Astros, Miami Marlins and Milwaukee Brewers – all teams with losing records and few, if any, bankable stars.      

The team with the most nationally televised baseball games during the second half of the season was also understandably the best team in baseball when the season ended, the Boston Red Sox. The Red Sox had 31 nationally televised games during the second half of the season (16 on MLB Network [which televises many more games a week than the other three networks], eight on ESPN, four on Fox and three on TBS). The National League leading St. Louis Cardinals at the season’s end had the second most nationally televised games with 25 (15 on MLB Network, seven on ESPN, two on Fox and one on TBS). The only issue with these numbers is that the Red Sox were only the best team in baseball, record-wise, for the last two-to-three weeks of the regular season and the Cardinals were only the best team in the National League, record-wise, for the very last day of the regular season.

Which team was the best team in the game, record-wise, for most of the season’s second half in both the N.L. and baseball as a whole?

The Atlanta Braves.

Despite leading baseball for most of the season, including the second half of the season, the Braves only appeared on national television 10 times (five times on MLB Network, twice each on ESPN and Fox and once on TBS). Ten MLB teams appeared on national television more during that span (Red Sox, Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, Orioles, Rays, Reds, Pirates, Rangers and Tigers). The Braves do have a pretty good sized following, mostly from the days when they were shown exclusively on TBS, but it’s not near of a following the likes that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals have. So, they could be the best team in baseball, but if they aren’t bringing eyes to the networks the networks don’t care. It’s a business. It leads to biases. It’s not really right, but nothing’s ever going to come of it. But, the fans are still going to grow fatigued and complain. Both sides are understandable.

The New York Yankees, by the way, appeared nationally on television the third most of any team in the sport during the second half of the season with 24 appearances (11 times on MLB Network, five times on ESPN and four times each on Fox and TBS) despite not making the playoffs. You can thank their national following for that.  

That’s right; the Yankees appeared in 14 more nationally televised games than the Braves. They appeared in more nationally televised games than seven other 2013 playoff teams, as well. The Yankees were broadcast nationally seven more times than the Tampa Bay Rays (who appeared on TV more because they played both the Yankees and Red Sox a lot during the season’s second half), seven more times than the Cincinnati Reds (who benefited from many games against the Cardinals), 10 more times than the Pirates (baseball’s best story of the year), 11 more times than the Dodgers, 12 more times than the Detroit Tigers,  18 more times than the Oakland A’s and a whopping 21 more times than the Cleveland Indians.

Sure, many people will be saying those lesser featured teams need to grow larger fanbases so that they can compete for TV time with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox and Cardinals. But, to them I ask the question: How does a team build a larger fanbase? The answer: appear more times on national television.

But, now that we’ve seen that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals ride their large fanbases to more nationally televised games than other franchises, some with better records/teams, it’s time to go back to my initial theory. All of those damn Yankees vs. Red Sox matchups are broadcast nationally aren’t they? Some people haven’t believed me when I’ve said this in the past, but here’s the proof. During the second half of this MLB season the Yankees and Red Sox faced each other 10 times … all 10 of those games were broadcast either on ESPN, Fox, TBS or MLB Network.

Man, it sure must be good to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan. The rest of us might want to find a job that pays better so we can invest in MLB.tv or move to a region that shows are favorite teams locally, because that’s the only way we’re ever going to see them play.