Quote:
Originally posted by Marty Rogers
I am sure that I made the "right" call for the game, but did I make the correct call by the rules?
Shouldn't this be one and the same?
Isn't the "right" call the one which
follows the rules?
|
Not necessarily.
I had a Fed game this spring. With R1 and less than 2 outs, batter hits a towering pop-up toward F4. R1, from his leadoff, took a reaction step toward 2B, but he immediately turned to return to 1B where he chested F3 several times causing difficulty for his return. Still, he returned to 1B without any possibility of being retired (the ball was still in the air when he retagged).
F4 ultimately blew the pop-up but was able to retire R1 who was toast in his attempt to gain 2B. Coach came out begging for an obstruction call---which I would not provide.
Was R1 hindered? Yes.
Is that the Fed definition of obstruction? Yes.
Would the rules have supported an automatic award of one base? Yes.
Was obstruction the right call for the situation? Absolutely not !!!!!
While hindered, the hindrance did not change the pattern of play. Still, the Fed wording doesn't say "hinders a runner
and changes pattern of play", it says "hinders a runner
or changes pattern of play."
By rule, it was obstruction. IMO, it was not obstruction by the intent of the rule. It was coincidental contact that was very obvious yet having no bearing whatsoever on the final outcome of the play.
Umpires who apply no personal understanding of the intent of the rule are destined for significant problems in their umpiring career. Many games have infractions that are seen and overlooked. Your decisions in what you overlook vs. what you decide to enforce will have a significant bearing on your advancement. What you overlook will come from your understanding of the game---and that's learned through experience.
Just my opinion,
Freix