Mon Apr 04, 2005, 09:31am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tcannizzo
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
My guess is you have the discussion of "cannot be put out between the bases where the obstruction occurred" with the general obstruction rule. There was a change in the "cannot be put out between the bases ..." in 2005 dealing with an intervening play on another runner. That is probably what they were discussing.
Read the rule. ASA 8-5-B-4
Quote:
|
When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base, is obstructed by a fielder ... the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction,will always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction....
|
Says nothing about any obligation on the part of the runner to continue to try to reach that base.
|
There are a couple of things I don't like about ASA 8-5-B-4:
1. it says something that makes it arguably unenforceable: "...nor is attempting to receive a batted or thrown ball..." We know that this is wrong as it has been changed. Attempting to receive a thrown ball is not a current rule.
2. It is the only rule that refers to awarding a base that does not also include the phrase "is put out".
There are three occurances of the phrase "awarding a base" is preceded by the condition that the runner "is put out". Specifically, 8-5-B-2 and POE 36. Rule 8-5-B-4 is the only occurance that does not.
Certainly there are multiple occurances of the phrase "would have reached" in 8-5-B-1-Exceptions-1-a, and 8-5-B-3 but none of them include an awardof bases.
POE 36: "If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base he would have reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball will be called and obstructed runner, and each other runner affected by the obstruction, will be awarded the base(s) the runner would have reached."
There are other subsequent occurances of the phrase "would have reached" in POE 36, but these refer back to the preceding paragraph.
Clearly, (at leaset to me), the runner must make the attempt and be put out in order to be awarded a base.
|
What a bunch of hooey. You can believe what you want, but you are wrong (speaking ASA).
From the ASA Case Book.
Quote:
PLAY 8.6-7
R1 slides into 2B as F4 jumps unsuccessfully for a high throw. The ball bounds into the outfield and F4 falls on top of R1. The players untangle slowly as the ball is returned to the infield. The base umpire is convinced R1 could have advanced to 3B if F4 had not fallen on top of R1, but after the pile up R1 showed no inclination to attempt to advance.
RULING: F4's contact, even thought inadvertent, does in fact impede or hinder R1's progress. By definition, it's obstruction. Award R1 3B as that is the base that R1 would have reached in the umpire's judgment had there been no obstruction. (8-5B)
|
I didn't count the number of case plays that had the obstructed runner put out and determine that being put out is required because it was mentioned more often. Maybe I don't know how to interpret this stuff.
__________________
Tom
|