Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
The rule was never intended to force the defense to disappear unless they had the ball. It was intended as a counter to the coach teaching his players to block the base without the ball and the resulting injuries.
|
Actually, that was exactly the intent of the change. It isn't a matter of the defender disappearing, but not to be there at all until they possess the ball.
Quote:
|
The defense has every right to be in position to make a play. If the offense does a bone headed thing, that doesnt automatically give protection.
|
On a batted ball, yes, but that is it.
Quote:
|
R/S 36 is clear as to the intent of this rule, which is as I just stated.
|
That was the manner used in explaining it to the coaches and it makes a lot of sense. However, there was no mention of it in the rule change proposed in 2003. I think the purpose of the rule change was equally meant to just make it clearer to enforce and takes away the guesswork. BTW, the defense never had the right of way without the presence of the ball. This rule change simply required the defender to gain possession prior affecting the runner's path.
Quote:
Lets take a look at a pick off attempt, a major source of OBS calls. R1, leads on pitch, throw from F2 on the pickoff attempt..
Now if I read you guys right, if that runner had decided to dive to where I put the star and arrows and start clawing her way through a properly positioned defender, who left more than an open lane to the base, you are protecting her?
|
You are correct, but not for the reason you are trying to sell. The only way the runner takes the path you suggest is if they abandon going for the base and attempt to draw the OBS. If that was the case, the defender's presence is not what caused the runner to alter her path, hence there is no OBS.[quote]