Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
There were no other runners in my play, but I am confident that obstruction itself contributed to the end result of the play.
Had there not been obstruction, F8's careless play would have allowed the B-R to easily make 2B. Then F4 probably would have caught the ball and ran it back into the infield.
But with the obstruction, B-R was late into 2B and F4 saw a chance to make a play. But she was "throwing before she caught the ball" and fumbled the ball to the ground several feet away. That action allowed B-R to continue to 3B. So obstruction itself changed the game, and was a factor in subsequent actions.
That is why I have a hard time "drawing a line in the sand" and saying that, for obstruction purposes, the play ended here and my mind is locked. As I watched this play develop (I was PU) there were many continuous and interdependent factors that affected the end result.
In my case, the B-R was safe at 3B so no call was needed. But the various "what-ifs" cause me to wonder what all I would take into account had an out/safe or base award call been required.
WMB
|
Seems to me, I clearly cited Andy's post and his general comment to Tom. I did not respond to your post.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 06:30am.
|