Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
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".
|
In the play you cite, if at the time of interference, you said to yourself "I have runner protected the 3B", then you have ruled as ASA requires. If at the time you told yourself "runner would be out at 3B with no obstruction, but if it is close, I will award due to obstruction", that is incorrect and openended.
Years ago, I was taught that obstruction was to be awarded using both the initial opinion of award, and the "runner lost 2 steps" approach. That was open-ended, and made sure a penalty was attached unless the runner exceeded all 3 forms of protection (those two, plus the between two bases). In your play, if the runner forced a subsequent error, and was in a close play at home, the old method still protected, since it was within the "lost 2 steps". That isn't what ASA wants; it wants 1) protected between 2 bases, and 2) protected only to where you judge runner would have reached if no obstruction occurred.
Hope that is clear and covers your concerns.