Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
That is not totally correct. The umpire is to assess the runner, affect of the obstruction and make a determination during the initial play. Any subsequent actions are irrelevant to the award. If the umpire thinks the runner should have scored, yes, that is the award regardless of whether the runner attempts to score or not.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Emerling
I agree.
In the example where the batter may (may not) have an inside-the-park homerun, the umpire can allow the play to develop and award as appropriate at the conclusion of the play.
home.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
Seems to me the difference is obvious. Mike said that ASA requires the umpire to make a determination on the initial play, at the time of the obstruction, and subsequent action is irrelevant to the obstruction award (and protection). David agrees(?), and says to wait and see the result of subsequent action.
David, except for ASA, you are not incorrect; that is a correct approach in NFHS and NCAA.
BUT, subsequent action should
NEVER cause you to lessen the initial judgment of an award, only increase it. To do anything else simply rewards the defense for obstructing, and teaches them they can benefit from it, and never be effectively penalized. So, except for ASA, you should always make an initial judgment, and be prepared to increase the protection if the runner shows better running skills than you may have suspected. If the runner has lesser skills, too bad; stay with your initial judgment, and award the base you initially judged would have been reached. Do not "surmise", judge. Tell your friend that is why we are paid the big bucks; not to hide from calls, to make judgments. In ASA, you stay with the initial judgment, always.