Thread: OBSTRUCTION
View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 29, 2004, 01:09am
Dakota Dakota is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by teacherspit
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:
Originally posted by teacherspit

Any obstruction between third and home the runner is awarded home. If the runner is obstructed before reaching third and the ball is inflight to third a play is being made on an obstructed runner. The play is killed and the runner awarded third.
Of course if the ump felt that an obstructed runner could have gotten more than one base he will award.
Speaking ASA

This just is not true. There are no pre-set standards for placing a runner or awarding them any particular base(s) on an obstruction call.

If you believe there is, you have either been taught incorrectly, misunderstand the rule or are a troll looking for an argument.

Tom,

Not looking for an argumnet.
The stike zone is set in stone, yet every ump has their own. NO argument, well always an argument.
But my point being is that everyone knows that either a strike or ball has to be call.

So I cannot understand why ASA would not just go ahead and award a base on an obstruction.
The way the rule is written now, it could be to a defensive teams advantage to obstruct. Especially if the player is returning to base. What does the defense have to lose, nothing.
But I am truly not trying to start an argument.
I just believe that it is something that needs to be addressed or at least reviewed.

He's Mike. I'm Tom.

Anyway, I've very nearly argued both sides of the position you are stating. Some years back (I don't remember how long - 3, 4?) NFHS had a required base award in the obs rule. It didn't work very well. As Mike has pointed out on numerous occasions, the objective of the obs rule is to keep the offense whole, not to punish the defense. What the defense loses is the opportunity for an out.

The common "coached obs" (base blocking) in JO fast pitch led me to argue that the rule needed more teeth. But this was based more on the lack of consistency in the call than anything else. I think, now, that I am willing to give deleting the "about to receive" clause a chance to see if this will result in more umpires calling obs more consistently. If it is called each time and every time, coupled with a warning for repeated base blocking by F3, for example, then coaches will realize they have nothing to gain and a possible injured (or ejected) player to lose.

We'll see.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote