Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
There has to be some penalty for blocking the runner's path, and that penalty is advancing the runner to the base he would have attained had he not been obstructed.
|
I only take issue with the statement "there has to be some penalty for blocking the runner's path." Not always. If a runner who is going to be a "dead duck" at a base is obstructed (type B) but the umpire judges that he would have been out even without the obstruction, then the out will stand. It is therefore not wise to say "there has to be a penalty" for type B obstruction. You should stick with "the obstruction has to be nullified."
This very issue is what ignited the Great Internet Umpire Flamewar of 2002. Ask any oldtimer about that one sometime.