|
Teacherspit,
I did not see the play and am not sure what rules they were using, but with the removal of "about to recieve" in ASA (fed next year) then it is possible for F6 to have obstructed since she did not have possession of the ball when R1 got to the base. Also was there any movement of R1 to avoid F6 who I would assume was going after the missed ball that went into the outfield? Maybe the OBS occurred AFTER the original play as R1 was attempting to advance to 3rd, and F6 going for the ball. Also you said "That is why I said that if a runner had been obstructed and a play is being made on that player then kill the play." This is not true, you only kill the play when the obstructed runner is put out, prior to reaching the base they would have if no OBS occurred (in umpires opinion). And in answer to the other question, let's say that BU was focused on ball going to outfield and then trying to advance to get to position for a call at 3rd and did not see F6 obstruct R1 so he called the runner out at 3rd. Now for the comment about changing the call, it could have been that the PU saw the OBS that the BU missed and when they got together PU said "Hey she did bump her as she got up, you were heading to 3rd and might not have seen it." So the BU went with his partners view and changed the call based on this new input.
Goldcoastump,
It used to be common practice to verbally state obstruction when you signalled it, so I could see this still being done. I disagree with your statement, on OBS the ball is dead as soon as the obstructed runner is put out, and since the ball is dead all runners go back to the last base touched prior to the obstruction, except the BR and any runners forced to advance as a result of the BR obtaining 1st base.
|