View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 17, 2004, 07:10am
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve M
In a play like this, I'm going to "give" the obstructed runner two strides. Had the runner stopped at second & then restarted, that would be too bad. This runner didn't stop, so I'm removing the effect of the "minor affect" obstruction by giving the runner two running strides.

Every now & then, the defense non-chalants a ball and gets burned by a runner who is looking for an opportunity.
Steve,

Now, see, if you were in DC this past weekend with Luau, you would have heard me specifically ask of the NUS members if the protection is determined at the time of obstruction and all subsequent action would stand on it's own.

The response was positive. For that matter, the phrase emphasized when covering the protection provided when obstruction occurs was "AT THE TIME OF THE OBSTRUCTION". I have no problem with this interpretation.

I know a lot of people will not buy into this, and for that matter, there was only two members of the NUS present, so there could be other opinions out there. However, as a UIC, I must take the direction I am given from the NUS. If I ever hear differently or receive updated information, I'll be more than happy to post it on this board.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 17th, 2004 at 06:13 AM]
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote