Red Sox got hosed

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

First, quick background for those who didn't see the end of tonight's (Saturday's) Game 3 of the World Series:

Bottom of the ninth, 1 out, Cardinals with runners on second and third, Uehara pitching. John Jay, facing a drawn-in infield, grounds to Pedroia, who throws home in plenty of time for Salty to tag out Molina. Allen Craig makes a late break for third, Salty tries to throw him out but the throw gets past Middlebrooks and goes into foul territory down the left-field line. Middlebrooks falls while trying to snag Salty's wide throw. Craig, after sliding into third, gets up and takes off for home, but stumbles over Middlebrooks before continuing for home. Nava retrieves the ball and throws home, where Salty tags out Craig, but the third-base umpire ruled that Middlebrooks obstructed Craig, and the home-plate ump confirms the call. Craig awarded home, Cards win.

What a freakin' joke. Yes, I'm a Sox fan. Yes, I'm biased. But hear me out.

Here's what the MLB rulebook states:

The rule can be found in the Official Rules of Major League Baseball, Section 2.00, Definition of Terms:

"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.

"Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: ... 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."

According to the letter of the law, the third-base ump made the correct call. Or did he?

It's interesting that the official rulebook comment on the rule gives an example that nearly matches what happened in this case—a fielder falls to the ground while making an attempt on a ball—but then goes on to say that such a fielder "very likely has obstructed the runner." The language here is not absolute; it does not say "the fielder HAS obstructed the runner." So while the rule states that a fielder who's fallen is not considered to still be "in the act of fielding," he's not necessarily obstructing the runner (only "very likely" doing so). To me, this seems to leave a bit of wiggle room that tonight's umpires either were unaware of or declined to utilize.

Anyway, I have several problems with what occurred:

1) My main argument is this: Since Middlebrooks had just tried to make a play, and had fallen during his attempt to make a play, and hadn't yet had time to get up, he shouldn't be called for obstruction ... because what else was he supposed to do?

2) Middlebrooks, in fact, TRIED to get up, but Craig pushed him back down. I don't think Craig was making a dirty play, just trying to propel himself forward while getting up after his slide into third, but he nonetheless pushed Middlebrooks down. Soooo, apparently there can be defensive obstruction but not offensive obstruction? That's cool.

3) When Craig began his move toward home, he was looking back at the ball—and not watching where he was going. That's his fault. And also leads to my next point ...

4) When Craig took off for home—apparently disoriented in his excitement—he was about two feet towards the second-base side of the third-base bag, and thus about three feet in from the foul line. ... In other words, he wasn't even within what would be considered a legitimate lane in which a baserunner is allowed to run. I mean, who, after sliding into third base, spins inward towards second base—instead of outward towards home plate—and goes significantly out of the baseline in the process? AND GETS AWAY WITH IT?!? Only Allen Craig, apparently.

Some will call this sour grapes on my part, but I think the primary issue here is fairness. Fielders are allowed to dive onto the ground in an attempt to make a play, so they SHOULD be given a legitimate opportunity to get up and get clear of any runners. The rule was followed, but it's an insufficient rule: I realize that umps can't be expected to rule on whether a fielder intended to obstruct a runner, so insofar as that goes, the rule is good, but to make NO allowance for a fielder to at least try to get out of the way is 100% unfair. According to the rule, then, and according to what the umps said, Middlebrooks would've been called for obstruction even if his legs had been flat on the ground and Craig, through his own failure to pay attention, tripped over them. How is that fair?