Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
I agree with JM
Intent is NOT an issue when ruling OBS.
Simple example;
F3 is sleeping and not in position.
B1 hits a gapper and F3 while "sleeping" hinders the runner on route to second base because he is in the base path without the ball and B1 had to slow down or go around F3.
Even though F3 did not mean to obstruct the fact is he did and we rule accordingly.
Show me in the rules where it says that INTENT is a requirement for OBS. We have enough to do without getting "inside the minds" of ball players.
FWIW and I will confirm in my umpire association meeting is this:
Is each player doing what they are supposed to?
ie; B1 running as hard as he can and F3 doing his best to field the ball and then they collide.
My ruling and hopefully the ruling in my association when I bring it up is: NOTHING - that's baseball.
As TEE pointed out the "main ingriedient" for the rule change was the fact that F3's were going down on one knee to block the base on pick-offs and were getting away with it under the old rule. In fact there was a case play that said this was Nothing.
It's my gut that the OBS ruling will get "tweaked" in the years to come as was the case when FED changed it's appeal rule
Pete Booth
|
Never said intent had to be present, just said it makes the call an easy one if I judge that there is intent........