Also, you are implying by raising his legs there was intent. There doesn't have to be any intent with obstruction.

You can never win an argument with a blind cheerleader.

Quit your whining...if this was the other way around yiu wouldn't say a word.

Where's the controversy?

Yeah it sucks to be on the losing end of a call like that, but it was the right call.

I'd say the same thing. It's a fricking rule.

I'll give Sox fans a minute to come to their senses.

Kinda like Raiders fans after the Tuck Rule fiasco...lol.

does the runner automatically get another base?

Given that Craig almost scored despite tripping over Middlebrooks, it's like he would have scored if Middlebrooks wasn't there.

the 3rd baseman. Would the runner be awarded another base?

Craig probably wouldn't have tried to score, but if he did, he would have been tagged out. You can't be called for obstruction if you have the ball.

CRAIG was the runner, not Jay, and by the rule, it didn't matter if Middlebrooks grabbed on to Craig or lay dead on the field. It's still obstruction. Likely the only way obstruction WOULDN'T have been called would be if the ball hopped up into the stands, in which case it wouldn't matter.

and when he lifted his legs it made it obvious.

Craig tripped over his ass, which was on the ground, not over his legs, but it didn't matter anyway since intent is irrelevant. They COULD have called obstruction even if Middlebrooks lay dead. If Craig was smart, he would have intentionally tripped over Middlebrooks to force the call and likely be awarded home (which is what ended up happening). I'm not saying he tripped on purpose, but it would have been a "smart" play.

but you are right---it's irrelevant.

Again--if this was against the Cards I'd say the same thing.