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.