|
Wyman, you are misinterpreting the change. In adding this new exception, it may not have been as clear as rewriting the entire rule, BUT, 8.5-B(3) does not supercede 8.5-B(1). The two rules must be considered together. I state this having attended the National Council meeting where the rule was proposed, discussed, and passed, as well as the UIC Clinic in OKC where it was addressed as the new rule.
8.5-B(1) makes it clear that the runner cannot be out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred unless there is either a running infraction, or the runner reaches the base you judge they would have reached AND there is an intervening play on another runner. 8.5-B(3) means to refer to a case where you would protect a runner beyond the immediate two bases (not just to the first base), and they pass that point. An example would be BR hits the ball in the gap, 1B obstructs BR turning to 2nd. You protect the runner to 3rd in your mind, as the base BR would have received if no obstruction. Note that this brings into play a protection beyond the two bases (1B & 2B) where the obstruction occurs. 8.5-B(3) says if that runner passes third, they can be out. This rule does not remove the protection extended in 8.5-B(1), it adds another instance of clarifying when the runner is no longer protected.
I hope this clarifies the rule to you. In your defense, there was a large number of UIC's who initially misinterpreted this rule at the Clinic, as well; there was substantial discussion to get this clear to everyone. I'm not sure adding one paragraph to the POE (it is 36 in the 2005 book) made it sufficiently clear, either.
[Edited by AtlUmpSteve on Feb 18th, 2005 at 10:58 AM]
|