[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And as a matter of fact, yes, I did research it. But let's not take a "you're an idiot" approach to this. Okay, so I'm wrong. And?

Personally, I don't agree with this rule. I think it gives runners a "free shot" at the next base, and if they're put out in the process, then they get put back to the previous base. I've always had a problem with this, as it tends to create confusion on the field with teams (and, sometimes, umpires) who aren't as well-versed in the rules. This, I believe, is contrary to the spirit of the rule, which is to protect a runner who, through no fault of his own, is impeded by a defensive player. Free shot? Shouldn't be that way, but that's the way the rule is written.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this rule does change. Actually, I think it should change for the reason above: it gives the offense a "free shot" at advancing a runner who, in all probability, may not have even had a chance getting there on their own.

So okay, I'm wrong. But my question now is... How many of you agree with the rule as it is stated? And let's have a real discussion here, guys... Not a flame match.

People (no I'm not picking on you, OBS is discussed ad nauseum) already get confused by this rule - so I think "cannot be put out between 2 bases where obstructed" is very simple and direct.. although it does result in a "free shot" .. ie a coach may send a runner he wouldnt normally send.

To prevent that (if someone wanted too) and still enforce OBS would surely be much more complicated