Wed Jul 31, 2019, 03:21pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A
Richard, here's the actual case play you are referring to. It leaves a lot to be desired.
Note there is nothing in the ruling that states R1 must be awarded third base because she cannot be put out between two bases where she was obstructed. It just says R1 and the other runners are awarded the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. Well, if there was no obstruction, the likelihood R1 would have reached third is practically nil.
So why would NFHS muddy the waters here with such a generalized statement for this particular case play? They kind of leave it unsaid that the runner should be protected between the two bases, and even if she wouldn't have reached third base without the obstruction, she is still awarded the base. Seems rather vague whether or not the end result of this play would be bases loaded, one out, and a new F6 having to come in.
|
If you assume her chance was nil; then the ruling has to be a between the bases protection.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|