Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
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.
|
I don't think any downward adjustment of the award "teaches" the defense anything whatsoever since they will have no way of knowing that there has been any such adjustment. What are you saying, that the runner should be ruled safe no matter what happens? Is
that what the rule says?
Can't you think of
any scenario where you would allow the defense to put out an obstructed runner? If so, why wouldn't
that "teach" the defense that they could benefit by their infraction?
Let's say, during the time of the obstruction, I think that the runner will probably gain an inside-the-park homerun on the play. After all, the ball has been hit into the corner of right field and F9 still has a long way to retrieve the ball.
Yet, as the play unfolds, I discover the runner is not particularly fast and/or the defense ends up retrieving the ball much faster than I thought they could. Consequently, the runner ends up getting thrown out at the plate by a HUGE margin. It's not even close.
I allow the "out" call to stand on the basis that she would've been thrown out anyway, despite the obstruction. Don't you think that would be fairly obvious to everyone?
And who would be the wiser that I have modified my assessment?
So, I don't see how the defense could think that they have gained anything.
If anybody asks what my ruling was with regards to the obstruction that was called, I'd simply say, "I considered the effects of the obstruction and protected the runner as far as 3rd base. She proceeded home at her own risk. The out stands."
Would I be saying anything inconsistent with the rule? Could even an umpire evaluator be able to ascertain that I engaged in some kind of unauthorized "mechanic"? I think not.
Awarding this runner home (simply because that was my first impression) would appear like an outrageously inaccurate assessment and would certainly be open to criticism. It would
look wrong - and it
would be wrong.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN