Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
Quote:
Originally posted by DG
Quote:
Originally posted by Matthew F
FED - the act of obstruction does not negate the runner's responsibility to avoid a fielder legally.
|
Where you read that one illegal act trumps another illegal act?
|
Malicious contact supercedes obstruction.
|
Hurdling is not malicious contact. Since this came up I have been searching for a FED reference (since not hurdling is a FED rule) that says a hurdler who did so because he was obstructed should be called out, instead of calling obstruction, kind of a which came first, chicken or egg question. Seems to me the obstruction came first, and resulted in the hurdling. I have not found the definitive answer yet, that's why I asked where you read this. I can find a reference to a runner being obligated to avoid a fielder legally, when he is not being obstructed, ie catcher has the ball or is in the act of catching. But when one illegal act leads to another, it seems we should figure out which came first.