[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Mike,

I would point out Fed 8-4-3 again
"ART.3...A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:
a. (...)
EFFECT...)
b. a fielder not in possession of the ball(...)impedes the progress of a runner(...)"

Let me start by saying I have not received the 2002 book, so I am working out of last years book in which there was no 8-4-3. Last year the rule was covered in 8-3-2 and since it hasn't changed, there should not be a difference, right? So let me tell you what I am reading:

"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to field a batted ball, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner, and each other runner affected by the obstruction, the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. If the obstructed runner advances beyond the base the runner would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, the run advances with the liability to be put out. If the runner maliciously runs into a fielder, ther shall be no award for obstruction. If any preceding runner is forced to advance by the awarding of a base or bases to an obstructed runner, the umpire shall award this preceding runner the necessary base or bases. The penalty for faking a tag is obstruction.

NOTE: When obstruction occurs, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and call out "obstruction." If the runner is tagged out after being obstructed, a dead ball is ruled and she is awarded the base(s) she would have made had there been no obstruction. She may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed. Exceptions: Leaving a base too soon, missing a base and malicious contact."

Is this what this years book states, or was there a wording change I missed at their web site?

The penalty portion then explains how to place the runner, and specifically states that the runner can not be put out between the two bases where they are obstructed.

I wish that Article 3 said the runner is entitled to advance or retreat instead of just advance.

I just don't beleive that the rules permit us to declare obstruction (an illegal act by the defense) occured and then say that we protect the runner for 20 feet and she is out of luck because she is 25 feet from the closest base. The statement in paragraph 1 of the Penalty clause "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, for an act of interference, or if passing another runner" doesn't offer the option of making an obstruction award less than the next base or last base touched.

We might get into the 20 feet opposed to 25 feet if she attempted to advance an additional base, or retreated beyond the last base for some strange reason.

I'm sorry, Roger, but what are you talking about? Where did 20 & 25 feet come from? A runner is protected from the last base legally touched at the time the obstruction occurs to the base which, in the umpire's judgment, the runner would have reached safely at the obstruction not occurred.

If the runner is just rounding the base, or feinting toward the next base, I think you can judge that there was no legitimate attempt to advance, and without an attempt to be a runner who is "leagally running the bases" you may ignore the incident and state that no obsruction occured.

Since very few umpires can tell the future, it is not wise to ever ignore the obstruction. The rule makes no statements regarding whether the runner's actions were legitimate or not. If a runner is rounding a base and the fielder's presence makes her hesitate or reroute, it is in your best interest to make the call. Why? Because the runner may believe F9 is a bit lazy or the ball gets bobbled and heads toward the next base. Now you rule her out at that base on a bang-bang tag play. Here comes the coach who is going to point out that the runner was obstructed. Are you going to tell that coach that you didn't think the runner's attempt was legitimate? I hope not, because a smart coach is going to win that protest.

As far as my opinion of the runner not haveing a prayer, I've been fooled before. After all I got married in '73 and voted for Nixon in '72! (big G)

I voted for Nixon, also and I was in the Navy at the time. The man only made one promise and he kept it. Compared to some of the performance of our presidents over the last two and a half decades, I'd vote for Nixon again.