As a professional rules official in another sport and very experienced in parsing the words in rules, allow me to help with the analysis...
Correct. Once the defensive player was on the ground, errant throw passed him and gone, he was sprawled in the path of the base runner. Had the runner not tripped over the impeding defensive player, he beats the throw home easily. Like it or not, that is what happened. Instant replay validates the obstruction call.
Correct.
The instant replay showed that 3rd baseman lifted both legs up which was what actually tripped up the runner. It was not a normal movement/ reaction if he was trying to get up and after the ball. You would normally push yourself up on your hands and knees. I have no skin in the game here and no bias ( actually want the Sox to win sense they are an AL East team). That was the correct call. Perhaps if the baseman at least tried to make it look like he was going after the ball he might have been able to get away with it.
Correct, but not relevant to the situation. The fielder's movements, such as lifting his legs up, have nothing to do with the decision.
The baserunner was out of the basepath . The fielder was in the act of trying to field the ball and therefore not obstucting the baserunner . Judgement call .
Incorrect.
Once the errant throw skipped past the third baseman, he no longer was in the act of fielding the ball, as defined by the rule. At that point he became a defensive player between the runner and home plate, flailing his legs around and up, impeding the runner. It was indeed a judgement call-one that was judged correctly, fairly, and without hesitation.
Correct, but flailing his legs around has nothing to do with the decision, and the only judgement call involved was whether or not the runner would have been safe at the next base had the obstruction not taken place.
Legs flailing . Watch it in real time . The fielder is in no way flailing away . lol
If the runner is in the base path where he should be , the fielder is inconsequential ...
Incorrect.
Here's the actual rule, and the definition of "Obstruction":
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL RULE 7.06
"(a) When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal 'Obstruction.'
"If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and
all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. 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."
Here is another key, key part as defined in Rule 2 (Definitions): "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. 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."
The key points are that the fielder is no longer in the act of fielding the ball, (which was now on its way into left field), and that
no intent is necessary. In other words, it doesn't matter if the fielder had stuck up his legs on purpose or not. The fielder was lying on the ground, he was not at that moment fielding the ball, he was in the runner's way, and that impeded the runner. If the runner had been thrown out by 30 feet, then the umpire clearly could have concluded that he would have been out anyway, and thus no obstruction took place. However, since it was still a bang-bang play at home, even after the runner tripped, fell down, got himself back up and running, there is zero probability that the runner would have been out without being tripped.
100% correct call.
I can't ever remember seeing that before!
ara:
