Based on Mike's response, it seems I was being too extreme in applying the NUS interp.
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
The umpire should determine where the runner would have ended up safely had not obstruction occurred when the play happens. That means the protection shouldn't be adjusted by subsequent play.
It the scenario given here (ball knocked around the OF) sounds as if there has yet to be a subsequent play of any type. If you remember correctly, the play that raised this issue about a year ago involved an umpire changing the protection after a throw to the infield bounced away from the player covering 2B.
|
Therefore, in both of WMB's scenarios, there is not a
subsequent play, but rather an adjustment of judgment on the original play, and therefore the adjustment of judgment on base protection would be accommodated in those situations by the NUS ruling.
In the situation I presented, it would seem that adjusting the protection based on the OF kicking the ball around would be OK, but if (instead) the throw home was bobbled by F2 resulting in a bang-bang out, then the runner is not protected, since this is a
subsequent play.
I think I can see a clear disinction in some cases (e.g. a play on another runner would be a subsequent play), but there is definitely a lot of gray here. I agree with Andy - in the gray area, give the benefit of the doubt to the runner.