Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
The only player provided protection by rule is the obstructed runner. All other runners are still be cognizant to the ball and the other runners at all times during a live ball.
----
ASA also allows runners affected by the obstruction to another runner to be awarded appropriate bases the umpire deems necessary to nullify the obstruction. HOWEVER, it does not allow any runner "protection" from being put out due to another runner being obstructed.
|
The runners are not obligated to recognize that an obstruction call has been made. The obstructed runner is not obligated to attempt to advance to the base she would be awarded in order to be awarded the base. (re: ASA CASEBOOK Play 8.6-7). So the obstructed runner is not obligated to try for 3B (in the example above) in order to free up 2B for the following runner.
Further, if the actions of the obstructed runner prevent other runners from achieving the bases they would have achieved had there been no obstruction, the umpire should award them the bases they would have achieved. (ASA CASEBOOK Play 8.6-8).
The casebook does not give an example of a non-obstructed runner being put out while trying to retreat due to actions the obstructed runner took
because of the obstruction.
However, note this wording in the ASA book...
ASA 8-6-B(3)
...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.
In Joel's play it would be a reasonable judgment that the BR would have reached 2B had there been no obstruction.
So, why isn't the out nullified and BR awarded 2B?
To paraphrase the most perfidious President of the 20th century
, in depends on what the meaning of
always is.
[Edited by Dakota on Oct 18th, 2001 at 10:46 AM]