Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
R1 is stealing 2B, F6 moves to 1B side of bag to take the throw. However, the pitch gets away from the catcher. F6 does not step away. R1 has to go around F6 to hit the back corner of the base as she mades the turn towards 3B. BU signals OBS. R2 decides to try for 3B, but F2's throw nails R1 for an easy out at 3B.
#1 - Runner can not be put out between the bases of which she was obstructed.
#2 - If runner goes beyond the base she should have been protected to, then she is on her own. Any outs made would stand.
I would imagine your first reaction is "dead ball, obstruction, runner is returned to 2B."
However, the obstruction actually took place between 1B and 2B. That is where F6 was located; that is where R1 was when she started to alter her running. So - technically - R1 should be protected to 2B, and, because she tried to advance beyond the protected base, the out should stand.
So, what say you? I realize that this is not common sense nor spirit of the rule, but would you call her out on a very literal interpretation of the rule?
WMB
|
Well, despite the fact that you have R1 & R2 both going to 3B while there was no R2 in the play....
It isn't possible to call a runner out on a "very literal interpretation of the rule". Just because the runner was obstructed between 1B & 2B doesn't mean the umpire cannot protect the runner to 3B. Without saying so, it seems you have inserted a presumption that the umpire is only going to protect the runner to 2B and that is fine. However, it is by no means a "literal" interpretation of a rule, but a judgment call by the ruling umpire.
One note though. If the ruling umpire is only going to protect a runner to 2nd in this scenario, s/he had better not have the left arm raised while that runner is between 2nd & 3rd as that is an indication to the coaches and players that obstruction is still an active call and has not been dropped. IOW, by doing so, you may place the runner in jeopardy.