|
Speaking ASA, obstruction is an infraction without a penalty. I have expressed my views on this rule before.
If the runner is not obstructed, she will reach the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction (obviously). The worst that can happen to the defense is the same outcome if there had been no obstruction. Therefore, from the defense's perspective, why not obstruct?
And they do - all the time. Whether it is blocking the base, or whether F4 just happens to be standing just off the corner of 2B, preventing the runner from rounding at full speed, or whether F6 just happens to be in the base path - it is a coached technique. Look at it from their perspective. If they obstruct, one of only two things will happen, either
1) The umpire will not call it and they will have a better shot at getting the runner out, or,
2) The umpire will call it, and the result will be the same as if they had not obstructed.
So, what have they got to lose?
I can only conclude that ASA doesn't view the coached obstruction technique as a serious problem.
Nonetheless, it is their game, and we are not to fudge our judgment in order to call what we think the rule should be.
The one leeway we have in enforcing this rule is the judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction. The rule doesn't say when we are to make that judgment.
For example, suppose B1 hits a fly ball deep into right field. BR1 runs full steam toward 1B, but F3 is standing off the base, taking away the full-speed rounding base bath, so B1 is forced to slow a little in order to touch the base. The umpire signals delayed dead ball / obstruction. She keeps running full speed after rounding 1B. F9 fields the ball and throws it to F4 on second to try to either tag the runner or at least hold her there. The ball is overthrown into left field. The runner continues without stopping toward 3B. The fielder backing up the throw fields the overthrow and tosses it to F5. F5 fumbles the ball and drops it. R1 continues past 3B on toward home. F5 picks up the ball and throws it to F2. F2 catches the ball as R1 is a couple (2 or 3) strides from home and tags her out.
Is it proper for the umpire to take all of the play into account and then judge what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction?
I say "yes" - even though the runner was tagged out well beyond the two bases she was between when the obstruction occurred, and even though the obstruction was not so egregious or the base hit so powerful that at the time of the obstruction the umpire would have thought, "She's protected to home." As the play developed, it is a reasonable judgment to say that she would have reached home had there been no obstruction.
What do you folks think?
|