|
I think you might be confusing what you're being told here. PWL pointed out that in this play there's no visual obstruction, that's not to say there's no such thing as visual obstruction. I think John gave you a decent example of what could be considered visual obstruction in a given situation. It boils down to the umpires judgment. If he feels the defensive player intentionally interfered with the runners ability to see the ball then he's right to call it.
Tim.
|