Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
The OBR obstruction rule can be debated "until the cows come home" because of those 2 little words under Type B IF ANY
Example: R1 one out
Ground ball to F6 to start the 6-4-3 DP. BEFORE F6 fields the ball, R1 is obstructed by F3, F6 flips to F4 and on to F3 to complete the DP.
In addition, R1 was out by a Mile at second base
OBR Ruling: - DP stands because absent the OBS, R1 would have been out anyway. Some will say Hey wait a minute we have Type "A" here but at the time R1 was obstructed there was no play on him so in the example above it is Type 'B" but as mentioned one could argue the "other way" since we are 'splitting hairs" as to when R1 was obstructed.
The problem with the OBR obstruction ruling is that Obstruction in some cases can be "waved off" and not penalized because of the wording under TYPE "B" When we rule interference we do not "wait and see", we simply enforce.
|
I think, Pete, that the OBR obstruction rule gets muddy because so many umpires focus too much on the words, "if any," and not enough on the words, "nullify the act of obstruction."
In your double play situation, in what way was the act of obstruction on the BR nullified? The ruling you used as an example did nothing to nullify the act of obstruction, and there were no subsequent events that would cause you to consider the act of obstruction nullified -- so how on Earth has that ruling at all followed the language of the rule? In order to come to the ruling you used as an example one would have to ignore any references to nullifying the act of obstruction and read only, "in his judgment," and, "if any."
Furthermore, we understand from case plays, interpretations, and examples exactly what, "if any," means and when we can use, "judgment." Since Type B obstruction allows play to continue, the obstructed runner could score. There would be nothing to do in order to, "nullify the act of obstruction." The runner can also reach -- on his own -- the base he'd be awarded, and then subsequent events during continuous action could allow him to advance at his own peril beyond that base -- thus the act of obstruction is nullified. There isn't a single authoritative case play example anywhere on this planet that is even remotely similar to the ruling you posted.
In all examples of delayed dead balls in the OBR, the design is solely to avoid penalizing the offense for an illegal act by the defense. It is to give the offense an opportunity to advance beyond those bases they would have been awarded for the illegal act. One would have to completely ignore that fact in order to look at the obstruction rule the way you have in your post.
So, yes, you can make the arguments you have made about the obstruction rule, but you'd be showing very little understanding of the language of the rule and the principles behind it, and you'd be very wrong.