Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
Assume the following: Type B obstruction has occurred on a runner between 1st and 2nd.
True of False:
1. This runner can NEVER be put out between these two bases.
2. Depending on the particulars regarding the obstruction, this runner might only be protected to FIRST base.
Thanks!
|
1. False
2. True
David:
Once you commit the routine particulars to memory, you won't have problems as long as you understand baseball.
There is something called "post-obstruction" evidence. The mechanic of yelling and screaming and jumping up and down when Type (b) obstruction occurs is designed to forestall that event.
But you're insisting on going on. So be it.
Statement One is False because it does not allow for "post-obstruction" evidence.
Either the defense or the offense -- or both -- may do something to change the runner's situation.
B1 rips one deep to left. As he reaches first, F3 obstructs him. The umpire calls "That's obstruction!" and says -- mentaly -- "I'll protect him to second." As he watches, the left-fielder goes for the ball and misplays it. Now, the umpire says -- mentally: "He's got third." B1 steams for second -- and slides (!) because of a magnificent deke by the second baseman. The umpire says: "I'll give him second." B1 now realizes that F7 is still chasing the ball, so he gets up and tries for third, where a tremendous throw by the cut-off man (Derek Jeter) puts him out at third.
And that's all right by you. B1 went a base too far. He had third on the error, but the decoy took that base away. Naturally, in FED, the decoy -- likely a simulation of receiving a throw and tagging the runner -- would be penalized, and I would award B1 third.
But everyone will feel better if you will describe the specific Type (b) obstruction that occurred between first and second. I'm having a tough time visualizing that unless it's the batter-runner as he rounds first. But we've already beat that horse not only until it's dead, but nothing other than its bones are left.
Since Statement Two is true, it needs no explanation.