Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
I feel it is worth adding to this with a philosophy; one we have discussed on this board before over the years.
When you say "Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3", that may not be the full story. For the most part, "impedes the progress of a runner" is not something that is limited to the one specific spot where it initially occurs; I would submit that runners are most often impeded for an area, several steps, perhaps before, most often after, the initial spot where the defender is standing. When a runner breaks stride, changes direction, or makes contact, it takes a few strides to regain full speed and balance; and if we are charged to negate the result of the obstruction, then we must also judge the entire scope and length of that obstruction to include any area from where the runner was hindered until he/she recovers and is now unimpeded.
So, in your play stated from your recent high school season, if that batter-runner was back at full speed and in full balance and no longer hindered from the obstruction, ALL BEFORE reaching 1st base, then I accept and agree with your stated outcome.
But it seems pretty rare to me that on this play the OBS happened so far before the bag that the BR was fully recovered prior to reaching, rounding, etc. While the initial judgment may be to only award 1st base, the protection "between the two bases" should be extended for as far as the runner remains hindered; so I've likely got her protected between 1st and 2nd, even though I'm not awarding 2nd. Absent that, you didn't negate the result of the obstruction, and you effectively rewarded the defense for the violation.
I agree that we aren't psychics, and we sometimes have to use our best judgment without the prescience necessary to be fully confirmed. That said, if I have any doubt, I will always err on the side of protecting the victim of the obstruction when the alternate option results in rewarding the offender. I believe that is always the intent of that rule.
|
I generally agree with your philosophy but wouldn't have applied it that way the way I was visualizing TeeBob's play. If the runner had no obvious business rounding first and would have stopped there if not for the obstruction then I don't think I'd bring what you said into consideration. Do you think that's wrong?
Second while the intent of the rule is to not reward the offender, there are definitely times when it still does. Consider this TWP: routine double, batter runner tripped by first basemen. Center fielder slips on some grass before throwing the ball and what was a routine double now looks like a potential triple (*) as the ball rolls toward the right fielder. Absent the obstruction this play would have ended with a runner on third. But with the delay from the obstruction, the right fielder who has a cannon for an arm guns the runner down at third.
It seems to me that the choice has been made that rather then let the umpires try to straighten situations like that out, we've been told that sometimes the obstruction can benefit the offender; but it can't be of benefit to them at the time the runner is actually hindered.
Am I misunderstanding?