Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Speaking ASA.
2004 change to rule 8-5B (obstruction), so the rule now reads:
Quote:
|
RUNNERS ARE ENTITLED TO ADVANCE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO BE PUT OUT. When a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases. ...
|
OTOH, rule 8-7Q reads:
Quote:
|
THE RUNNER IS OUT. When a defensive player has the ball, or is about to catch a thrown ball, and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player. ...
|
It would seem that the defensive player described in 8-7Q who is about to catch a thrown ball is guilty of obstruction according to the change in 8-5B.
I'm assuming this is an oversight. Am I right, or is there something I am missing?
|
If it is an oversight, and I don't think it is, it should remain an oversight. They are two totally different rules covering a possible scenario with different resolutions. If you remove it, you have given those who believe obstructing fielders are legitimate targets, something upon which to hang their hat.
The first has to do with protecting obstructed runners while the second protects defenders from USC.