The umps got it right

Maybe, but based purely on the picture was Middlebrooks in the basepath or did Craig intentionally run into Middlebrooks hoping to get an OBS call?  The slide took him to the base - he got up and ran left into where Middlebrooks was lying on the ground.  If players are taught to find a fielder to run into during a rundown play within the "basepath", then it stands to reason that's a possibility :-) 

Of course Salty probably shouldn't have made that throw...

The base runner establishes the baseline and if Middlebrook does not raise his feet into the air tripping Craig, Craig scores standing up....it might be a tough pill to swallow but it was the right call.

Without a doubt it was right call. Both my son and I yell it at the same time while watching the play live. Again. intent does not matter. It is not a good way to end a geat game but the umps got it right/

I would hope the umps wouldn't make an obscure call that can affect a game in such a big venue.  

If it wasn't intentional I think the umps should have ignored it.  

Put it this way, if this game was in Boston would that call have been made?  

The UMPS did NOT get it right. Middlebrooks was on the ground from the play before (attempting to tag the runner out) at third base. He did not dive in front of the base runner as the runner attempted to head home. Craig was also on the ground from the play before (diving) at  third base. Craig attempted to get up and fell again before he cleared (got over) Middlebrooks body. Middlebrooks legs did nothing to cause this. Maybe twinkle toes Craig's bad ankle was the reason for the second stumble, no one will ever know. What we do know is the UMPS totally @#$%&^ up the call.

If the umps don't make that call - they should not be umps at the major league level. It was not a hard call - it was very easy.I give MLB umpires a lot more credit that bowing to where they are playing.

Itent has nothing to do with the call. He scores standing up if he does not trip. I am not saying Middlebrooks could have done something different (other than you have to put your body in front of that ball to stop it - you can not let it get past you with winning run on 3rd). Fielders can not impede the runner - whether they mean to or not.

Rule 7.06 -covers obstruction but it is also covered under the below rule. I am not copying the whole rule but the part that applies specifically to the play

"Obstruction is also among the terms defined in Rule 2.0. Most germane to this play is part of a comment in this section: "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: 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."

intent has nothing to do with this rule. Whether it was intentionall or not it becomes obstruction. Baseline is immaterial as baserunner establishes his own in that situation. Really tough call but right one.

This reminds me of the call a few weeks back when yadi got the runner out, but perhaps didn't actually tag him, the runner would have been out.

Craig would have scored and I think that was the reason for the call.

Birds got lucky.

Great game!

This is such textbook obstruction that they should use it as an example of a good call in the rule book. If you want to whine about something, whine about Middlebrooks not knocking the throw down in the first place.

007 your are wearing RedSox covered glasses....the call would have been made in any ballpark.

i wonder if that had need ARod lying on the ground tripping up a Redsox player from scoring what the reaction would be???

Greenburg tweet well put

@Espngreeny: Also beyond debate: The umpires handled the ninth inning infinitely better than John Farrell did. #Cardinals #RedSox

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=31186613

This has a better look in slow motion.  

There was definitely no intent.  The throw brought Middlebrooks off the bag.  He was trying to get up but laid down again, IMO, to avoid obstruction.  

Also looking from 3rd to homeplate view was the runner in the basepath? What is considered the base path? 

If Middlebrooks feet did not got up would this have been an obstruction call? 

I am not sure I agree that there was not intent, why does he raise his legs up in the air if you believe Middlebrooks was trying to get up..... why does he lift his legs like that....that is not what you would do if you were trying to get up but is what you would do if you were trying to slow the runner. Does not matter anyway intent has nothing to do with the call. The baseline is established by the base runner, so Craig did not go out of the baseline. Bottom line is the right call.

I think Boston fans should be questioning some of the managerial moves made more than this call.

Not wearing Red Sox colored glasses, the call was wrong. The defensive player has the right to make a play on the ball (the throw from home). The result of that play (due to a tailing throw) the defensive player is on the ground. The runner took in inside path attempting to go home (outside the base path by the way). Additionally the base runner pushed the defensive player back down as he attempted to go over him (check the video). Had the runner taken an outside approach (in the base path) he would have had a clear path to home. Additionally had the runner not pushed the defensive player back down the defensive player would have gotten up (and by doing so been out of the way on an inside path). One can disagree with this assessment if one believes the defensive player on the ground decided to just lie and not get up as the biggest play of the game is going on, really.

007 believe what you want but not many people (expect those in Boston) that agree with you. In fact I have many friends in Boston and they agree with the umps. they do not like the result but the agree with the call.

Everyone I've talked with in Boston (was in a sports bar last night and out to breakfast this morning) who know the game agreed it was the right call. It was the yahoos who didn't play past LL and the pink hats who were whining the call was wrong.

Given the circumstances I would have liked to see a non call. Both teams would have still had a chance to win rather than an umpires call deciding the game. But Matheny would have popped a vein arguing a non call.

Matheny is a bit of an ass. After his comments about the area he's one notch below ARod in terms of popularity. He's still complaining where the Cardinals hotel was located in 2004. He dissed the town. He should have dissed the Cards 2004 front office. You don't make friends ripping a city for your team's travel decisions.

If Matheny wants to rip on our area (Boston) i suppose we could say Saint Louis is a cow town.

RJM not exactly ripping the city

"The Cardinals were also unhappy with their accommodations in 2004. They stayed in a hotel outside Boston, in Quincy, which they believed was an unsuitable distance from the ballpark. Late-night room service was not available at this hotel, which was also considered a hardship. This time, the Cardinals are housed in the city, with all the necessary creature comforts apparently available.

"I think we were staying in Connecticut last time," Matheny said with a smile. "Boston is a beautiful city, especially this time of year. And I think we're all very happy to stay nice and close this time. It was about an $80 cab ride in '04."

I like Matheny...I like the letter he use to send to the parents of his youth baseball teams.....

This aint the NFL or the NBA. This call had to be made. It's the rules! If no call is made here then you've taken away the Cardinal win. Even with the obstruction, Allen Craig almost scored so what would have happened if there had been no obstruction? He would have scored easily...

I agree there would have been ambiguity or a chance for a non call had he not moved his legs/feet upward with clear intent to impede the runner. He said he was trying to get up, not move out the way or lay there. Try to stand up with your palms on the ground and your feet in the air. If was trying to get up, after the initial stumble his legs would have been extended and his toes/balls of his feet would have been pushing up. This isn't the NBA where no holds barred at the end of the game, it was a great call, the umps didn't look at the time of the game, the gravity of the situation, they just made the call & signally immediately.

I saw the letter. I'm not a big fan. As a Jew I'm not comfortable with bringing Jesus and Christianity into the dugout. A guy I coached with told us (Jews) to leave the dugout if we weren't going to bow our heads and accept Jesus as our savior. He told two nine year olds and me there was no room for heathens on the team. 

Middlebrooks has a right to field the ball, once it's past him he's basically screwed given the way he played it, as he's not going to be able to avoid obstructing Craig once he's flat on the ground and he's not going to have time to get out of the way.  The runner is not obligated to go out of his way to avoid a fielder who's no longer making a play on the ball, and an ump could still call it obstruction if he did anyway. The comment to rule 2 specifically covers this, "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."

FWIW, the third base foul line is not the basepath.  The basepath is established by the line from home plate to where Craig is when he makes his move toward home. Craig's "recovery" from his slide into third left him a few feet inside the foul line, and the direct route from where he stands up goes right over Middlebrooks' legs.

RJM agree with you that should have never happen to you....Matheny did not force his beliefs on anyone like what happen you.

He was upfront about his approach so if a parent had an issue they did not have to join the team.

In the first part of his letter...

With that being said, I need to let you know where I stand. I have no hidden agenda. I have no ulterior motive other than what I said about my goals. I also need all of you to know that my priorities in life will most likely be a part of how I coach, and the expectations I have for the boys. My Christian faith is the guide for my life and I have never been one for forcing my faith down someone’s throat, but I also believe it to be cowardly, and hypocritical to shy away from what I believe. You as parents need to know for yourselves and for your boys, that when the opportunity presents itself, I will be honest with what I believe. That may make some people uncomfortable, but I did that as a player, and I hope to continue it in any endeavor that I get into. I am just trying to get as many potential issues out in the open from the beginning.

007 that is not how the baseline is established....the runner establishes the baseline...here is one more attempt from a unbiased source.....may be this can get you to understand the rules of the game.

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...-last-play-of-game-3

RJM - did someone hack your account?

I would have liked to see a non call: What baseball person would EVER want umps to not make a proper call?

Matheny is a bit of an ass. After his comments about the area he's one notch below ARod in terms of popularity: With who, rabid Boston fans? That's just absurd on so many levels.

If Matheny wants to rip on our area (Boston) i suppose we could say Saint Louis is a cow town. You (or the hacker) just did. For the record, Ft. Worth is Cow Town, and proudly so.

But assuming this really was you, can you post a link to Mike "ripping your area?" All I can find are numerous comments he's made about what a buzz saw the Rox were in 2004 ... how they executed almost perfectly and the Cards didn't. His only comment about accommodations I can find is this:

"I think we were staying in Connecticut last time," Matheny said with a smile. "Boston is a beautiful city, especially this time of year. And I think we're all very happy to stay nice and close this time. It was about an $80 cab ride in '04."

Clearly that's not ripping Boston. And from you -- the guy who just a few days ago said this about whether or not 91-0 was bullying: Sometimes all you get from competition is a life lesson about improving ... it just seems really odd.

Here's to a great game tonight.

JP

Clearly Red Sox fans want to believe Craig ran himself into the fielder. Others know he just jumped up and tried to score.

No on likes how it ended, but to say that Craig deliberately drew an interference call, when the ball was way the hell down the left field line, defies common sense. It's a lot easier to believe that Middlebrooks deliberately lifted his legs to trip Craig -- but since we don't know what he was thinking, we let it go. It was a bang bang play, and the umps got it right.

And it SUCKS that Victorino is out.

Is there a rule stating a runner cannot impede the fielder such as pushing him down?  Because that is what happened before Craig fell over Middlebrooks.  

Didn't you know Matheny's beliefs before your son joined the team?  Personally I don't think anyone's religion belongs in the dugout even though I am a Chrisitian.  My son doesn't play baseball to pray with other religions. Personally I find it hypocritical that supposed Christians ask God for a win when they are living in adultery. 

Cut and dry.  Home plate umpire made the correct play to pick up the slack of the third base umpire who was not doing his job.  Ump got it right..

Joyce the third base umpire did make the call

Baseline =/= basepath for those who are unaware.

Runner's aren't allowed to make contact with fielders who are in the process of fielding the ball or making a play, neither of which Middlebrooks was doing when Craig made contact with him.

You missed that one, fenway....3b ump called it right away.  He was doing his job.  

This is not correct.

A fielder in those situations is simply not liable for obstruction. Contact is not prohibited on either player's part.

In this picture, where are the umpires his eyes?  I submit to you they are not where they should be or you're telling me he has eyes in the back of his head?  Was he easily distracted by the shiny balloon in the third row? 

His umpiring mechanics were terrible on this play.   His eventual correct call (was not seen) by him but bolstered by the home plate umpire who actually saw the whole play and made the correct call to support the third base umpire.  That was my point.

Yet, another reason why video replay is needed in MLB.  It is needed to help these umpires.

"In this picture, where are the umpires his eyes?  I submit to you they are not where they should be or you're telling me he has eyes in the back of his head?"

Fenway, If you have watched the video of the play, You can see the Umpire look at the ball and then look back to the base twice.  His eyes were never fixed on either the ball or the runner.  Joyce called Obstruction immediately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b51MDeC-Jw0

I've seen several Red Sox fans try to use a photo of Joyce looking into left field to show that he didn't see the obstruction. They seem to ignore the video which clearly shows him seeing the obstruction and making the absolute right call. 

And the thought that this call shouldn't be made in this situation is absurd. 

As for Middlebrooks, I have no doubt that he lifted his feet to get in Craig's way.  If you're trying to hop up for the prone position, you bring your knees to your chest, you don't lift your feet.

Of course, intent doesn't matter in this situation.

Another crazy ending last night.  Why was Boston even holding Wong on?

@HunterPence on Twitter

"Don't think the controversy should be on the umpires here. When you throw the ball away they typically score. That's baseball"

Exactly.  

That throw was pointless, but not so bad.  The F5 on my kid's fallball team would have handled it easily.

As a neutral observer I have no doubt that the call was correct.  Dad43 explained why quite well but partisans like 007 are not interested in the rule book if it contradicts their version of events.  As for  people who say that Joyce's  mechanics were wrong... really?  Umps are not taught to follow the ball? That's just desperation speaking. Hopefully everybody is feeling more like themselves after a great win in another great game last night.