Sounds like more a mental misjudgment than a physical error to me, but whatever. It didn't change the outcome. That guy still makes it to third and scores on the single anyways.

Very similar to the mental lapse Wainwright had in Game 1, he never touched the ball.

I think technically he is charged with the error for not catching a catchable ball, which then allowed a runner to advance to 3b. It's a close/questionable call, as they could have charged it on the throw IMO.

Um, yeah, exactly like that....for which Wainwright was not charged with an error.

The difference being that Salty touched the ball.
Had he caught it there would have been no throw, no advance, etc.
I can see it either way. The biggest mistake was that the throw didn't go to 2nd.

Nice to see great umpiring. Made the right call again!

Obstruction
 

Unreal chain of events! Talk about having victory snatched out of the mouth of disaster...any rulebook gurus know when the obstruction rule went into the MLB rulebook? Never seen anything like it. Crazy, just nuts.

Beats the hell out of basketball.

I understand the obstruction rule, but one simple question remains--What is the player (Middlebrooks) supposed to do?---suddenly become invisable?

The call was correct for the rule as written, but it is a Bull---t rule!

---and before anyone says Will tripped him by raising his legs, the runner tripped his own self up on Will's back/butt, not on his legs.

No game should be decided like that, no matter who you root for! The rule definitely needs to be rewritten immediately!

Doesn't matter. Craig has a right to the base and base paths and as long as he is within those lines then the responsibility is on the fielder.

Doesn't matter. Craig has a right to the base and base paths and as long as he is within those lines then the responsibility is on the fielder.

All well & good, but Middlebrooks was flat on the ground w/ the runner basically on top of him---he can't roll away, he can't get up & he certainly can't suddenly become "the invisable man" now, can he?

There is no common sense being applied in allowing what happened, to happen!

The rule needs to read: In a case like this the runner is safe and returns to the original base (in this case 3rd). Only if the umpires rule there was intent then the runner is awarded the next base even if thrown out.
Just my thought. I am neither a Red Sox nor Cardinals fan, but to end a World Series game like this?

I despise the Cardinals with every fiber of my being, but the call was correct. Buzzard's Luck for Middlebrooks but the rule is the rule. If they don't apply it then it isn't fair to the Cardinals.

I'd love to know what the Cardinals brass have been sacrificing at their Satanic altar beneath their stadium all these years. I'd send some to Chicago...

secret
 

secret

Does anyone know if the runner has to touch home plate in that situation? I don't believe Craig did. I know he's awarded home plate on the obstruction call, but isn't it just like a walk off where he needs to make contact with the plate? Just curious.

Fredyoung,

Sucks for you as a Red Sox fan HOWEVER if the rule isn't written like it is then what is to keep Middlebrooks from sticking his leg out and tripping Craig once Middlebrooks sees that the ball is down in the bull pen and Craig is going to easily score the winning run?

Face it, if Middlebrooks does what he did then interference is going to be called and the Cardinals win the game. If Middlebrooks lays on the ground motionless, Craig steps over him and runs unimpeded to home plate and the Cardinals win the game.

David

Iron horse,

On fangraphs, they posted a pole about this play and used rule 7.whatever as the guide. However, that is the wrong rule to use. On the MLB network, they showed the umpires' interview and also Joe Torre from the Commish's office. They used rule 2.whatever which deals with interference calls. Rule 7.whatever only deals with what should happen after interference has been called. Two different rules addressing two different things.

David

I don't know the specific rule but his right foot did graze the plate.

Sacrifices
 

Squirrels

I am pretty sure Middlebrooks threw his legs up on purpose.

And why not, he had nothing to lose, as Craig scores easily if he doesn't try to do something.

How about actually calling the alleged obstruction when it takes place instead of after the runner is thrown out at home? They have only played three games and the umpiring of DeMuth has to seriously be questioned.

I believe obstruction is a delayed dead ball call. If the runner is safe, the obstruction is waived. I'm pulling for the Red Sox and don't like the outcome, but the umpire made the correct call.

Actually, i am not sure his foot grazed the plate. i just paused it and watched in slow-mo. unless he stood up and stepped on the plate (the camera cut away from the plate after the slide).

That's the way I am seeing it also. I am sure it doesn't matter because obstruction was called and it is an awarded base. I doubt it can be appealed and if it was, he would probably just have to step on the base to end the game.

Sox fan here, the rule is what it is kind of like the end of the Pats/Jets last Sunday. Not real impressed with this ump. crew, which I think is ranked among the bottom quarter in the majors. The strike zone once again was all over the place. Salty you aren`t J Bench and Middlebrooks has to take 1 step off the bag and catch that throw. Sox and Boucholtz tonite, have to get 6+ from him as bullpen is running out of gas. P S thought Napoli couild have been p h`ed in the 9`th but we`ll see tonite. I think the Sox tie it up and Mon is the swing game of the series !! GO SOX !!

Someone actually just explained this to me...It didn't matter if he touched home plate or not.

Obstruction was called...the runner was tagged before he touched home, and the home plate umpire made the decision that Craig would have scored if it wasn't for the obstruction. So he does not have to touch the plate, he was "awarded" the run.

3B umpire called it immediately, signaling to the home plate umpire. Joyce did a good job of keeping track of both the ball as it went into left field and the action around the bag.

Bill

Bush league play by Will. He purposely put his feet up to stop craig.

Fyi, this has nothing to do with the incident of interference. Craig could have stopped off at Starbucks and taken in a movie, it would not matter. Obstruction is obstruction. What happens after the fact means nothing, except to us crazed fans....what a game. Definitely one for the ages. The whole game was a war. Kudos to both teams.

That is what I assumed, thank you for confirming. Obviously, I have never seen a play like this before!

No, how about attaching electrodes to Saltalamachia's brain so he can be electrocuted every time he thinks throwing the ball is a good idea. His arm is a f***ing liability out there.

WRONG!

The runner actually tripped over Will's upper leg/hip area & then stumbled, putting his hand on Will's back to catch himself! If anything he helped hold Will down & his raised legs had nothing to do w/ it!

You're letting your Red Sox hatred cloud your vision & unbiased view once again!

Not quite as bush as Alex "slappy" Rodriguez.....:D


I think the call was correct. Interference happened whether intentional or not.

The rule doesn't need changing. Adding an umpire having to determine intent is not going to be better. There's just too many ways to be slick about it then claim no intent. That's not a great situation for the fielder on a play like this, but it's the best way for everyone.

I'm sad to see the Sox lose that way, but that's how the game goes sometimes.

Steve B

1985
 

For Red Sox fans who think the call was wrong, we Cardinals fans who remember October 26, 1985, can relate

I disagree. First off me being a yankee fan or my hatred for the sox have nothing to do with it considering there's tons of people who seen the same thing from seeing the play. Second did you even see the play? It's obvious that middlebrooks did it to either A. Trip craig B. Slow him down. Middlebrooks was on his stomach, so you're telling me when you're on your stomach the best way to get up is to bend your legs back towards your back. NO

I agree with you on this one. it was subtle, but it was there none-the-less. That said, Will had to try and I don't blame him.

I think there are two separate arguments here. 1)did he obstruct (or attempt to) in any way and 2) did the subtlty of the offense deserve to get called (as the deciding factor in a WS game, no less). I know a game is a game, but most officials in most sports typically let players be a hair more aggressive in championship play. To me, this is like ending a game on calling a runner safe on a second baseman's ghost tag on a double play attempt.

The biggest problem I have with the play was the weak slide made by Molina. A little more aggressive base running and the throw to third would have never happen.

Just my 2 cents.


Jantz

Totally +1. What was that? He might as well of given him a pat on the butt.

Paul,
At least he got to the bag. If it was his brother Jose he'd still be "running". :D

Conor,
What if a batted ball had nicked a runner? Is that too ticky-tack to call? A balk? Where is the line?

No need to rehash " The Call ". St. Louis could have went out and won game 7, instead they got blown out. Bird fans always hang the I - 70 Series on a " blown " call. All you had to do was win the seventh game. Spilled milk.

Jim, I don't nessesarily disagree, although neither of your examples include hard-nosed play. Neither a ball knicking a runner or a balk are comprised of two competitors fighting it out. I suppose for me, that's the line, IMO. That said, on a technical level, the call was right.

Why complain about the in obstruction call? It's done, it's over and the game went to the Cardinals - time to move on. It was a pretty good game up until that point. I think those were just two poor base running choices and the Cardinals came out on top, in spite of themselves.

What should the Sox do?

Play Napoli behind the plate and have both him and Big Papi in the liine up?

or

Play Napoli at first and sit Big Papi?

or

Play Big Papi at first and sit Napoli?

Gotta play Ortiz. He's got the hot hand.

No bad call and no need for a Game 7. Shouldn't have to win 5 games.

While I would love to see both bats in the lineup, I'd be shocked to see Napoli behind the plate. I'm more concerned with getting Nava the hell out of there. I understand he covers more ground than Gomes and Busch has a big left field, but that's a trade off I'd be willing to make. Nava's bat is dead weight out there.

The obstruction rule needs to be changed as any rule that gives the Cardinals a win can't be good.

Well you would need to change the rule that says the team that scores the most runs wins too! ;)

I cheer for the Cubs and anyone playing the Cardinals. Any day the Cards lose is a good day in my book. LOL

Unbiased opinion. As I have no rooting interest in either team. Well, I'm not too big on the Sox, but indifferent enough, that I just wanna see some good ball from both teams here.

Personally, I think the interferece call, was probably wrong. Not as a result of the umpire, but a result of the rule being completely overwritten, to the point where interpretation can come into play.. The runner having been called safe, as a result of the interference call, was definitely correct though. I only say that it shouldn't have been called, because looking at it, as a result of the play at third, I really don't think there was anything either of them could've done to avoid that contact. If anything, Craig could've avoided getting tangled up there. As far as Middlebrooks legs coming up, I really don't think he threw them up. It appeared that he tried to bounce up after the dive, and slipped.. But I'll also agree, that the contact was more in the ass area, than legs, so where the legs went should be irrelevant. I'd chalk it up as "incidental contact". And from the specifications of the rule, it appears that they were trying to say that contact as a direct result of a clean play, should not constitute interference, but it looks a bunch of idiots wrote it.

Now, given that it's written the way it's written. I'd have probably been ok whether it was called or not, because honestly, I think both would've been correct. The whole situation is pretty crappy, and shouldn't have happened.. And I fault the morons that wrote the rule the way they did. Had the thing been cut and dry, with no possible interpretations, we would've gotten the absolute correct call, with no arguments from anyone. Because I think both sides have a legit argument here.

Having said that, it's still the World Series, fellas. It was an interesting game, and they gave us something we really hadn't seen before. Let's just enjoy the series. And from a guy with no rooting interest. Go Baseball!!!

Ken, Believe me I understand the Cubs-Cards angle. Thankfully the way history has played out the Cards fans don't have to worry good or bad much about the Cubs.

Not true, the game was still there for the Cards to win, but like I said it's crying over spilled milk. Anyways, many clubs could be more successful if they would look at how the Cards run their organization. My Royals certainly could learn a thing or two. St Louis has great ownership and their ability to scout and develope talent is unsurpassed. They do it all without breaking the bank. The Cards rotation is set for the next ten years with those young arms and I expect to see a few more WS appearances as a result. Fun team to watch.