[wadeintothem]

I think the part that may have me confused is the wording of the rule and which portion of the rule is applied with a higher precedence.

i dont have a rule book at work (mcroweder et al) but the two applicable aspects are essentially..

- A runner cant be put out between the two bases where obstructed.

and

- A runner who attempts to advance beyond the base they would have reached had there been no obstruction may be put out.

There are plays (such as the OP's) where this can come into conflict... and the suggestion that once there is obstruction between two bases, that at all times between those two bases (barring another infraction of the rules) there is a "free play" in effect for the off.

The manner in which this is being applied by those who know on this board could suggest that a wording change is in order.

So a similar play (in application)..



R1@1B. F2 attempts pick off on the pitch. F3 blocks a diving R1 from the bag without the ball, and OBS/DDB is called/signalled. the ball sails over F3. R1 gets up and attempts 2B. F9 backing up the play catches the ball and throws to F6 who legally applies a tag prior to R1 reaching 2B.




Now if the ruling is DB, R1 is safe at 1B.. then I stand corrected but suggest the following wording change..

"If the runner attempts to advance beyond the two bases where the OBS occured... they may be put out".

As it reads now, clearly the runner was going into 1B when the OBS occured, but equally clear, the runner is attempting to advance beyond the base they would have reached had there been no OBS (and a play had been made)---1B.

The rules clearly state that if a runner attempts to advance beyond the base they would have reached had there been no OBS, they may be put out.. in this instance its obvious the runner was attempting 1B at the time of OBS..


That is being said to be disregarded between the two bases where OBS occured.. and a punitive free play is in place for the Off between 1B and 2B.

I never interpretted OBS this way, but i'm guessing that that is wrong.. dunno.