Some of you are aware that there is a thread on the NFHS board where several members are suggesting they would signal obstruction to send a message when the runner is not observed to be hindered, but a fielder might be partially blocking a base. The arguments suggested are that the act "probably" affected the runner somehow, and that even a clean and unaffected slide "may" have been created by the position of the fielder. I'm not supporting nor suggesting that interpretation.
But, to greymule's play, I would have (at least) an extended interpretation of "where the obstruction occurred". If a runner is obstructed at, or just before a base, I consider them obstructed on both sides of that base, so long as it isn't completely apparent that they fully regained their momentum and chosen path prior to reaching the base. If being impeded or hindered is part of the definition, then they are, in my judgment, still obstructed until the impedence or hindrence is over. Maybe not a literal rule interpretation (and I haven't asked for one, for fear of hearing the response I don't want to hear!!), but that is how I would address the greymule play.
Well, that and the part about giving the runner the benefit of the doubt. Greymule said
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greymule
On a play like that, where it's really not clear that the runner would have scored without the OBS ....
|
I look at the opposite. The defense violated, the defense gets
NO benefit of the doubt. If it is not clear that the defense would have put the runner out, then the runner should be awarded the base.
JMO.