|
The ASA teaching / interpretation is that the umpire is to make the judgment of the base the runner would have achieved at the time of the obstruction, and essentially, not modify that judgment based on how the play actually unfolds. As I said earlier in this thread, I am not comfortable with that interpretation in all siutations, but in most situations it does the job.
The problem with the "steps only" interpretation (which is what I am calling how you explain your ISF interpretation) is that it gives the defense the advantage in some situations.
Example: Batter hits a triple, but is obstructed by F3 at 1st base such that by the time she reaches 2nd, either she or her coach don't believe she can now make 3rd safely, so they hold her up. Since you require her to try for 3rd to award third, the defense gained by turning a triple into a double by obstructing the runner.
What I actually prefer (but ASA says we are not to do) is a combination of the two. At the time of the OBS in my example above, I would judge "triple" AND judge "4 steps." Then, if the runner stops at 2nd, I award 3rd, but suppose the defense muffs the play somewhere along the way, and the runner never stops just keeps on running around 3rd and heads for home. If she is put out at home by less than 4 steps, she gets home on the OBS.
Problem is, this "steps" notion is not in the rules and ASA says "don't do that."
[Edited by Dakota on Apr 3rd, 2005 at 04:36 PM]
__________________
Tom
|