Jared Petersen 3rd Period English 1010 Scott Gunthers Class

An Analysis of the Obstruction Call

Baseball: Americas pastime. Every year, one team emerges victorious, setting itself above the rest. All they have to do is win the World Series, a series that is based on the best of seven games. Every year has its own unique twist. The 2013 Fall Classic between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Boston Red Sox was no different. In game three, the Cardinals won because of an obstruction call. An obstruction is when a player interferes with another players ability to advance a base. Red Sox catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia threw wildly to third base in an attempt to catch base runner Allen Craig after a play at the plate in the bottom of the ninth inning. Craig, who had slid into third, got up and headed toward home, but tripped over the legs of Middlebrooks, who was face down on the third-base line after a futile attempt to catch Saltalamacchia's throw (Edes). People like Sam Miller believe that this shouldnt have been called. The rule states that intent doesnt matter although that is one sides argument. Those people also believe the game or perhaps the entire World Series shouldnt have been decided by a simple error. They think that the Red Sox played better and deserved to win. The other side believes that because intent doesnt matter, he clearly obstructed the runner. The ruling is clear, if a runner is tripped in his path towards the next base then, The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base

beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out. Craig was clearly able to proceed so the ruling made by official Jim Joyce was correct. Jim Joyce is the umpire who made the call. He is a member of the Irish American Baseball Hall of Fame, so he knows what he is doing. He has also been the umpire for other prominent games. Jen Slothower and many others are demanding he be fired, but I think he made the right call. People on the same side of the argument as Evan Drellich believe the wrong call was made, other people believe that it was indeed an obstruction. I believe that the right call was made according to the official ruling. Many sports have no structure. One of the perks of the sport of baseball is its structure. In baseball you follow the rules to a T. Baseball is one of the most structured of the mainstream sports. To try and say that you need to not follow rules depending on the circumstances is in total contradiction to the sport. If one were a true fan of it then they wouldnt want to try and undermine the thing that makes it totally unique from other sports. Many of the rules in baseball go without saying. Rules like taking it easy on the opponent when you are ahead; everyone does it, but it isnt officially a rule. All teams just go along with these unwritten rules. George Will, in his article entitled Baseballs Most Important Rules are Unwritten says: This episode is recounted in Jason Turbow's "The Baseball Codes" about the game's unwritten rules. Just as the common law derives from ancient precedents judges' decisions rather than statutes, baseball's codes are the game's distilled mores. Their unchanged purpose is to show respect for opponents and the game.

This quote shows that baseball as a sport is so structured that it has rules that arent even written and players still obey them. Will goes on to tell about how so many people on teams have gone out of their way to show respect for their opposing teams and its players. Writers like Slothower and Drellich say that it was a silly and incorrect call, but what they dont realize is that the strict rules and structure are what give baseball its pizazz. I believe that the right call was made because baseball is meant to be that way. It is so organized and set up perfectly that even a little mistake could cost a game. In this case a loss was the result of a mistake. People complain about the call, but the fact of the matter is; baseball would be such a different sport if it lacked the strictness of the rules. Everyone who was watching this game knew that it was the right call. It is fairly common knowledge that if you trip someone, whether it be by accident or not, you have obstructed the runner and must be penalized. His interference in this specific play may have been vaguely outlined in the ruling, but I think that everyone can agree that he kept Craig from running to home plate and that Craig very well may have made it home. Because he was denied the chance to give his best shot at running home, Craig was awarded the run. Everyone in the baseball world had something to say about this call. Twitter was ablaze with the opinions of many players in the MLB. Brett Anderson of the Astros said: Ok so hearing the rule read out loud, Joyce made the right call...just a bad way to end a World Series game. (Tweet) Jason Kipnis of the Indians said: Hate to see any game end that way, especially with how insane of a double play it would've been if no call was made! #rightcalltho (Tweet) Daniel Hudson of the Diamondbacks said: Before I get killed, I was just saying it sucks for such a good game to end on a play like that. I thought it was the right call. Fire away (Tweet)

According to these players, the right call was made. Most players in the MLB thought it was the right call. It stinks to have a game end like that but all of these players, who know the rules, believe that it was the right call. Not everyone in the MLB believed that it was an obstruction. Max Stassi of the Astros said: You cannot end a World Series game on an obstruction call that is very borderline!! Wow!! (Tweet) As you can see, there are many people on each side of the debate. The players on this side of the call say that it was way too important a game to have it end on a call that was not simply black and white. I believe that the right call was made because most everyone who is a big name in baseball believes that it was as well. They also believe that baseballs structure is what makes the game. The rules are such an important part of the game that cannot be ignored, thus it was the right call. The biggest argument inside this debate is intent. One side says that Middlebrooks had no intent to trip Craig. Some players were even saying that Middlebrooks tried to get out of the way. They believe that the reason he didnt get up immediately was so he specifically wouldnt impede Craigs progress. According to those people, Middlebrooks knew where Craig ought to have been and laid down to stay out of the way. In their opinion, if Middlebrooks was doing his best to stay out of the way, then he shouldnt be penalized. He had good intentions, and since most of the unwritten rules are about sportsmanship, they should have let him go. Many times people have just been let off with a figurative warning. There has never been a situation similar to this play. This is the first time in the World Series that an obstruction has decided a game. This side of the argument thinks that because it has never happened before that it shouldnt be called without thought. Sure it is hard to ponder in the middle of a game but they think that Jim

Joyce saw the obstruction and without thinking about the consequences made the call. The other side says that there is a first for everything. People on the same side as Brett Anderson and the majority of MLB say that no matter the intentions it is obstruction, and should be called. I agree with this side of the argument. Middlebrooks stayed down as the play moved on and because he did, we have no idea what his true intent may be. He very well may have wanted to stay out of the way but he might have meant to be in Craigs way. Because there is no way of knowing, what was going through his head. In my personal opinion, the ruling is clear on whether or not he was intending to field the ball or intending to impede. It says:

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.

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.

Because this rule plays out the exact scenario, he has obstructed the runner. The ruling says very likely but that only applies in extenuating circumstances. Middlebrooks, according to the official rule, is no longer in the act of fielding the ball so he has indeed obstructed Allen Craig.

Many people say that the ruling is unclear, Middlebrooks didnt mean to, or that baseball is too strictly ruled. The other side is that, frankly, none of that matters. It was clearly obstruction and it is clear. Recently, there are changes to the rules of baseball. Now it is illegal to slide into a catcher at home base. I believe that because of the lack of clarity in this rule that left the call open for discussion; the MLB is changing many of its rules to get rid of the grey areas. I believe that Jim Joyce made the right call, even if the rules left it open for debate. If I were in his shoes I would have done exactly the same thing.