|
Does that mean you disagree with my earlier example:
"For example, runner from 1st obstructed before 2nd on a ball hit to the deep outfield. The runner keeps going to 3rd and is apparently put out on a very close play. The runner is not protected by the "bases between" clause, but should be awarded 3rd if the delay caused by the OBS was enough to prevent safe arrival at 3rd. "?
That is an example of what I meant by "negate any disadvantage to the runner " or in your words " eliminate the effects of the obstruction".
I don't know what you mean by open-ended. Does that conflict with what the book says in "awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there not been obstruction".
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|