Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Quote:
Originally posted by PeteBooth
We have just completed or still contemplating (depending upon your point of view), F1 (while in the wind-up) stepping back with wrong foot and whether to call a Balk. If I read Papa C correctly, it all depends upon the situation.
--- [snip] ---
Now what about obstruction? Do we rule along the same lines?
|
No, Pete. The reason you need to make a decision depending upon the situation with the balk rule is because of the clear and unequivocal underlying intent of the rule makers in making that rule, as stated in the End Note to OBR 8.05. That can be enunciated as "...to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the runner" by "an illegal act."
There is no such clearly and specifically enunciated underlying intent in the codification of the rules on obstruction. Most of that has to be inferred from the rule's history and the occasional casebook comment and official interpretation. What's more, unlike the balk rule where the pitcher's INTENT can be considered, there is no consideration of the INTENT of the fielder required to judge obstruction; only the effect the act is relevant.
Cheers,
|
I recall the 2000 World Series wherein Knoblauch had a base hit to the outfield. As he rounded first base and headed toward second he contacted first baseman Todd Zeile, a more natural third baseman. He continued to second and was out by a country mile. The first base umpire ruled obstruction and awarded second base. Some felt that Yankee coach Lee Mazzilli influenced the ump. I forget his name but I think he was either a first or second year guy.
I may be wrong but I think if I have a similar play and their is minor incidental contact, no legitimate chance for a double, the runner may have altered his path to initiate the contact, and he returns to first base -- I have nothing.
Your thoughts on this particular play in the Series and my theoretical play, which is somewhat different in terms