The Cardinals and Pirates played at PNC on April 9, 2025. In the top of the eighth, the Cards had Thomas Saggese on second base and Masyn Winn on first and two outs when Willson Contreras hit a fly ball in the area of home plate. Pirates’ catcher Joey Bart and first baseman Endy Rodríguez collided near the third base foul line as they tracked the ball. Both fell to the ground into the path of Saggese, who was sprinting down the third base line headed to the plate.

The ball deflected off Rodríguez’s glove and rolled a few feet in front of home plate, where Bucs’ third baseman Ke’Bryan Hayes picked up the ball at about the same time Saggese scrambled around Bart and Rodríguez. Hayes then tagged Saggese, who attempted to avoid the tag before reaching the plate. Plate ump Lance Barksdale called Saggese out.

The play triggered a couple of questions: (1) Was Saggese obstructed by Bart and Rodríguez as they lay on the ground? (2) Is intent necessary for obstruction to be called?

Saggese’s putout was critical because the Pirates won the game, 2-1.

Ruleball Comments

• In my opinion, the position of Bart and Rodríguez lying on the ground impeded the path of Saggese and Type 2 obstruction should have been
  called, because at the moment of the obstruction there was no play being made on Saggese such as a rundown or a fielder illegally blocking a base.
• Initially, it was Saggese’s responsibility to avoid the defensive players who were making a play. Saggese met that requirement.
• Once the defensive players failed to make a play on the ball, it was their responsibility not to impede, hinder, or obstruct the runner (Saggese).
• Granted, it was an accident and there was no intent, but interference and obstruction calls do not require intent.
• Because this was, in my opinion, a Type 2 obstruction, if Barksdale ruled obstruction the ball would not be dead, and he would have to make the decision if the obstruction impacted the outcome of the play. In other words, would Saggese have been safe had it not been for the obstruction?
• If Barksdale judged that Saggese would have scored if he wasn’t obstructed, he could have protected him and allowed the run to score.
• Let’s go to Game Three of the 2013 WS played between the Red Sox and Cardinals at Busch Stadium III that ended with a Type 2 obstruction call when there was no intent to obstruct. The elements of the play parallel the Bart/ Rodríguez situation.

In the bottom of the ninth inning, the teams were tied 4-4. The Cards had Yadier Molina on third and Allen Craig on second with one out. With the Red Sox infield playing in, John Jay, facing Koji Uehara, hit a ground ball that was fielded by Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia who threw home to retire Molina. Craig attempted to advance to third. Red Sox catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia, after tagging Molina, fired to third. The ball got by third baseman Will Middlebrooks who fell to the ground while trying to reach the ball. The ball then rolled down the left field line where it was secured by left fielder Daniel Nava.

With Middlebrooks face down in the dirt, Craig tried to hurdle him, tripped, then staggered toward home. Third base umpire Jim Joyce ruled Type 2 obstruction. He pointed to the obstruction and yelled, “That’s obstruction.” He properly kept the play alive, because at the moment of the obstruction there was no play being directly made on Craig. The ball was down the third base line.

By Joyce pointing to the obstruction and yelling “That’s obstruction,” this alerted plate ump Dana DeMuth as well as Craig and third base coach José Oquendo that obstruction was called.

As Craig was advancing home, Nava fired the ball to the plate. Craig appeared to be a dead duck. He was tagged by Saltalamacchia before he touched the plate. But DeMuth protected Craig because it was a close play, and in his judgment, Craig would have scored if he wasn’t obstructed. If Craig sauntered home with no urgency, and was an easy out, the out would stand. That’s why it’s important for runners and base coaches to understand that when Type 2 obstruction is called, there is no automatic base award. And if a runner is attempting to advance when obstructed, he should do so at full speed. Middlebrooks did not intentionally impede Craig and there wasn’t much Middlebrooks could do to avoid the entanglement. The bottom line is Craig was impeded in his attempt to advance home. The same holds true in the Bart/Rodríguez collision play. There was no intention to impede Saggese, but nevertheless he was obstructed in his attempt to advance home.

According to figures supplied by MLB, prior to Game Three of the 2013 World Series, a total of 1,404 postseason games were played over the years and none had ever ended with an obstruction call until Game Three of the 2013 World Series. It was a moment in October that will live eternally.

From this corner the Craig/Middlebrooks play was not an obstruction of justice. But it’s quite possible that the Bart/Rodríguez play was. It at least deserves a good argument in the court of baseball law.

Type 1 Obstruction

Type 1 obstruction is called when there is a direct play being made on the runner such as in a rundown, or when the batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first base or when there is a throw to a base and a fielder is illegally blocking a base. That would include a catcher illegally blocking the plate.

When Type 1 is called, unlike Type 2 in the above plays, the ball is dead, and the runner is awarded the next base after the last base he legally touched.

In the Middlebrooks/Craig play, the direct play was Saltalamacchia’s throw to third and there was no obstruction there.

Rich Marazzi

Rules consultant/analyst: Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Nationals, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Pirates, Red Sox, Rangers, Royals, Tigers, Twins, White Sox, Yankees, YES, and Chicago Sports Network