View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 13, 2007, 04:16pm
BigGuy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
Why make it harder than it is?

Coach JM has it simple and correct:

"Under FED, if the Obstructed runner reaches the base he would have absent the obstruction AND that base is (at least) one base beyond his position at the time of Obstruction, then the Obstruction is ignored and no award is made.

If both conditions are not met, the Obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base."
I'm certainly not trying to make it harder - the fact is, and maybe sad at that too, is that not everybody reads and understands the rule the same way. If they did, then everyone on this site would read and understand the rules the same way, and we know that isn't true. Some people think one step at a time and process that way while others can read the rule the first time and understand what it means. It's not to say one is better than the other, just different. That's why we have rules interp meeting every year, and even with them we still don't all think on the same page.

I figured that someone would see it the way you see it and respond, and you did, and I appreciate it. I just tried to provide an alternative way of thinking about the situation, because as I said, not everybody sees it the same way.
Reply With Quote