[2013 World Series] Cardinals vs. Red Sox

But when does acting on the ball stop. That's the real question here. Dude never had a chance to get up and get out of the way. He has a right to be in that dirt, by rule, and then a mili-second later has no rights whatsoever. There's really no logic to it. Rule needs more definition in my opinion, even it means being as clear as saying you have 1.2 seconds to get out of the baseline.

 

After the ball had gone by the fielder, he's no longer attempting to "field" the ball, even if he's lying there in the same position.

If the runner had tripped over him WHILE he was in the process of fielding the ball, he's out. If the runner makes contact with him after the ball has gone on by, its obstruction. Plain and simple, done and done.

That's the point of the rule... there can be a million reasons why a fielder is in the way of the runner in the base path... injury, faking an injury, intentionality trying to tackle or trip the player, passed out, got bit by a snake in the grass, got pelted by ice with a fan that knocked him unconscious, or simply lying there after attempting to make the play.

The point of the rule is to eliminate whatever reason it was that the fielder was in the way, and make the call as black/white as possible.

Hell, baseball would be far more exciting if you had a designated "tackler" that could run out of the dugout and prevent a player from reaching home... collisions anywhere away form the plate are NOT supposed to happen, and when they do, there needs to be rules in place to account for it.

 

I think the rule IS very clear. Instead of it being 1.2 seconds, it's 0 seconds. From the rule:

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.

The moment he misses the ball, he's no longer in the act of fielding.

 

If you go to basball-rules.com/umphelp.htm...and you scroll down to the section on Obstruction.

In italics it defines what obstruction is...and literally describes what happened in this play to help explain what obstruction is.

"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."


EDIT: crap, Major...I just realized you posted the very same thing

 

Like the other posters noted. He can't just vanish. The rule is clear, but inherently flawed. They want the fielder to be in two places at the same time. They give him a right to the dirt, but don't be there.

 

How is it flawed? Its clearly in place to explain how to rule this exact situation.

We know that collisions away from home plate are NOT allowed, thus there has to be a rule that can explain every single collision that happens in the field.

Its not like fielders are constantly colliding with base runners... its for these rare situations that rules like this are in place.

Yes, the fielder in this situation is screwed... there's nothing much he could have done to get out of the way. Likewise, the baserunner got screwed as well because he ended up tripping over said fielder and would have been out at the plate (if they didn't make any call).

You gotta have a rule to account for the collision... and you can't make it subjective.

 

What is the alternative, though? If you don't penalize the fielder, you're essentially penalizing the runner. Keep in mind that this whole situation is caused by the fielding team not catching the ball (whether it was that fielder's fault or the thrower's fault). If the fielding team makes the play, the runner gets no benefit of the doubt.

 

Clay Bucholz looks like a heroin addict.

 

You can just as easily say that the runner benefited by being safe at 3rd because of the collision.

You will likely chart this up to "apples to oranges", but how come "incidental contact" exists in the NFL? If a defender is lying on the ground on his stomach in the open field and you trip over him, the defender isn't penalized. If he kicks his legs up to trip you, that's "tripping". And that rule is completely logical. And there should be an MLB equivalent to that.

 

But in the NFL, contact is the goal - there's supposed to be contact. They are just determining what is and isn't allowed. In MLB, there isn't supposed to be contact. The defender was never supposed to be lying on the ground in that position - he was there because of a bad throw or because he couldn't catch the ball.

Think of pass interference. A guy loses sight of the ball and accidentally runs into the receiver. He didn't mean to be there or get in his way - there was no intent, but he screwed up. So he's called for the penalty. If you didn't call it, you'd be penalizing the receiver who did everything right.

 

Why are home plate collisions allowed? Why aren't there penalties assessed every time a runner and defensive player come in contact with eachother?

 

Pretty good series thus far... hell, pretty good playoffs overall.

 

Technically, any fielder with the ball in hand can "block the base" (any base)... and the runner can then do whatever it takes to eliminate the obstructing fielder (i.e. - collisions)... but anybody other than the catcher is unlikely to block a base, since they aren't afforded the extra padding (and usually are able to easily get a force-out/tag-out at 1st/2nd/3rd).

Also, the runner doesn't have to worry about "staying" on home plate, unlike the other bases, thus will force contact (if needed) to simply tag home.

Also, home plate collisions are likely to be banned this off-season.

 

That makes for quite a massive grey area, no? Why can't last night be considered "blocking a base"?

 

Because the fielder didn't have the ball.

You can "block a base" when you possess the ball, and are attempting to make a tag/play on the runner... but no fielder (other than the catcher) would usually attempt to do that, as the runner (who has the right to the base path) would then be allowed to collide into said player (who if its not the catcher, does not have the benefit of pads/protection... not to mention the runner could also get injured).

(I've since edited my post)

 

If a catcher is in front of the plate, the ball gets thrown to him and he doesn't catch it cleanly (in other words, never catches it), which happens a ton, why isn't it then immediately deemed interference?

 

Because if the collision happened AS the fielder was attempting to field the ball, its not obstruction.

If the ball goes by the catcher, and the catcher still tries to block the plate/collides with the runner, it would be obstruction (but usually its "academic"... as the runner is able to tag home safely regardless of the contact).

 

That's why you hold the runner on McCarver.