Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
So any time there is contact with the fielder, obstruction is to be called and awarded.
Are we not inserting ourself into the game here?
If Im coaching, Im telling my player to make sure and run into someone on the way to a base or if overunning a base.
I agree Federation obstruction has its differences however, lead me to a reference that affords us the priviledege of this strict interpretaion. Intentional or unintentional obstruction is one thing but how can a runner be obstructed from something he isn't going to do? And are we as officials, not afforded the oppurtunity to make that reasonable distinction before rendering a decision?
How has the fielder "hindered the runner or changes the pattern of play" in this situation.
|
Read the original play again. Why is the fielder where he is? There's two possibilities -- (1) He doesn't understand the game, or (2) He is forcing the runner to slow down and/or go around/bump the fielder. Either way, this IS a place to insert ourselves into the game. The runner WAS hindered. On a base hit, the runner should have the unimpeded right to round first how he sees fit.
The only contact I'll ignore is when both the runner AND the fielder are doing what they are supposed to do. In this situation, the fielder is NOT.
|
I have read the ENTIRE play again I agree with your two posibilities however, by Kaliix own admission, "the runner was NOT advanceing to second". Nor did he say anything in the rest of the thread to make me believe this.
You may feel it proper to insert yourself at this point, but I guess that unless you can substantiate it with reference, I have to disagree with you.