Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoachJM
cb,
Huh?!?!
I don't know who was delivering your FED rules lecture, but their advice was simply wrong.
Under FED, an obstructed runner always gets at least one base beyond his position at the time of Obstruction. Whether he was attempting to advance or not is not relevant to this minimum award.
JM
|
JM:
There is, I understand, some difference of opinion about this, which one hopes will be cleared up in the next FED Casebook. Before getting into any big argument, I should first state that I've never seen an actual play where the application of the "new" interp. would be appropriate.
The rub seems to be the language, added to 8-3-2 in 2006 [I think], that "
If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored." This does not change the principles you and LMan refered to: direction does not matter, and the award for obstruction is a minimum of one base to the obstructed runner.
As it was explained to me: "if the runner achieves the base he was attempting ..." when, for example, going back to 1st - and is safe - why, then he wasn't "really" obstructed; so "...then the obstruction is
ignored." "Ignored" = no award.
Supposedly, the language was inserted to deal with certain "no harm- no foul" situations, such as might arise in OBR Type B obstructions: like where BR rounds 1st and collides with F3 coming back to the base, and there was no possibility of him reaching 2d on the play, but he returns safely to 1st notwithstanding the "obstruction" by F3. If the runner coming back to his original base is obstructed and tagged out [he does NOT "...achieve the base he was attempting ..."], then the obstruction is not "ignored", and the award remains one base from his original position, iow- his advance base.
I do NOT know if this is actually what the Rules Committee meant, and I know that several well-informed and respected people, including Bob Jenkins, disagree; but this is certainly what they appear to have written. And since they went to some trouble to give emphasis to the 2006 "clarification" in the 2007 materials, I have to believe it means SOMETHING. Remind me sometime to PM you about my theory that Baseball rules are based on a model of restitutionary, rather than retributive, justice
.
Carter