View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 13, 2005, 01:58pm
mcrowder mcrowder is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
First let me say that I don't 100% always agree with what I'm about to say. But I do understand (I think) a little bit of WHY the rule tells us to ignore subsequent action.

Visualize a play that appears to be a stand-up double, with BR OBS by F3 just after first base (your immediate judgement is to protect to 2nd base). BR stumbles a bit, continues to 2nd. F9, seeing a possible play hurries her throw and guns it into left field, whereupon BR tries to get to third base and is thrown out on a banger by F7.

Many feel that the 4-steps BR lost rounding first should be applied to the play at 3rd and BR should be given 3rd.

Rewind this play to what happens if there is no OBS. BR ends up jogging into 2nd base on the stand-up double. F9 lobs the ball into F4 easily. There never ends up being a play at 3rd.

So those that agree with the 2-step, 6-step ideas on OBS would be wrong in assuming that BR lost 3rd base because of the OBS. She never would have tried for 3rd base if there hadn't been OBS.

You can apply this thought process to a great number of plays where action after the OBS causes the umpire to WANT to change his initial protection/award. It's entirely possible that the play would have developed in an entirely different fashion had the OBS not occurred, and the current thinking of ASA is to "make right" the situation, and not to penalize for OBS. Altering the award based on anything that occurs after the OBS can be equivalent to creating a penalty on defense for OBS.

You may disagree and feel that there SHOULD be a penalty for OBS. Heck ... so may I. But the ASA doesn't think there should be, which is why I believe the rule is written as it is and why we are asked not to alter our protection/award. (There may be more reasoning to their position than just this --- but this is my understanding of their reasoning).

Now.... my personal views? I think we should be able to award an extra base on most OBS's. Consider the "single-and-a-half"... without OBS, BR can fully round 1st base, drawing a throw to 2nd, and possibly attain 2nd if they force an error. WITH the OBS near 1st, our immediate judgement may be that she wouldn't have attained 2nd on the hit, so by rule we award only 1st (while protecting between 1st and 2nd). But to me - we are taking away the chance that aggressive baserunning could force a mistake. Again - this is just my opinion, and I continue to call it correctly, despite my views.
Reply With Quote