Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TussAgee11
2 points of clarification I wish to get insight on.
1) I still don't understand how the obstruction allowed R1 to get back to second quicker. If there is no obstruction, he makes it farther towards 3rd base, which puts him in even more of a rundown, as 3rd was occupied by R2. To me, negating the obstruction makes R1 even MORE out in that run down. How did F6 slowing R1s ADVANCE obstruct R1s RETREAT towards 2nd?
2) MLB rule 7.06 reads "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out." Now it seems as though R1 had legally touched 2nd, and therefore, should be awarded third. All preceding runners (which would be R2?) would advance if forced (R2 to home, because of force, correct?).
Is this just an OBR error? If so, how should the rule read (or at least its interpretation...)
|
1) The runner lost a step on the obstruction, and was out by a step trying to retreat. But that's beside the point. In Type B obstruction, the umpire must decide where to protect the runner. The only logical place to protect R1 was back to 2nd. If R1 had somehow advanced to 3rd base then he would no longer have been protected.
2) You're looking at 7.06(a), or Type A obstruction. You need to look at 7.06(B) -- Type B obstruction:
Quote:
7.06(b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.
Rule 7.06(b) Comment: Under 7.06(b) when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call.
|