|
Mike,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. The rule has not changed, just the cite.
Are you saying that the defense may obstruct the runner, and because your judgement is that she would have been out, you will not protect her? I just don't agree with that.
Obstruction is an illegal act by the defense, and as such the rules set out a penalty to be applied.
As far as the justificition that the runner must be attempting to legally run the bases, that is a requirement before obstruction can occur. It is codified in the codes(including the one you quoted above) I'm familiar with. There are rulings and authorative opinion on what constitutes a legal attempt to advance in baseball, and Type B obstruction under OBR is substantially the same as the softball obstruction rule.
There are additional rulings that I have seen regarding the post obstruction evidence as Dakota outlined above. I agree with his assement of the play he described.
He followed the mechanic used for Type B baseball obstruction,and what I have been taught to do in Softball under Fed, USSSA, and Pony ie: at the time of the obstruction he protected the runner to the next (or last) base at a minimun, then based on the post obstruction evidence his judgement was that the runner was obstructed a certain duration between 1st and 2nd.
As the play developed, the runner advanced beyond 2nd, and then beyond third. If it was his judgement that the runner was delayed illegaly between 1st and 2nd for two steps, and then the runner was out at home by those two steps or less, the proper award should be to home.
If that two step delayed runner was out by six steps, then the protection would not apply and the runner has attempted the famous "base too far".
I can not accept that the intention of the rule makers was to allow the defense to be able to obstruct a runner illegaly and then reap a benefit from that illegal act.
The manner I'm describing is the only way I have seen this rule interperted in softball or baseball in this reigon.
We seem to be too far apart on this to agree. I guess we should just advise folks to just discuss it with their UIC/Booking agent and adhere to their interpertation.
Our disagreement here in no way diminishes the respect I have developed for your rule knowledge and your assistance to those of us on this board.
Roger Greene
|