Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dash_riprock
That wouldn't be assistance, although I understand your point.
The Evans ruling permitted the umpire to ignore the baserunning infraction (by denying the appeal), based on the circumstances of the violation. Is there no wiggle-room here? After all, the OBS had a significant bearing on the play, the INT had none.
|
Dash,
The only circumstance that the Evans ruling permitted is that the umpire could ignore the infraction (missed base) if the obstruction CAUSED the missed base. If the OBS causes the runner to miss the base...then he is not subject to being called out on appeal. (As I pointed out in the thread on the other site). If the OBS does NOT cause the runner to miss the base, then he is subject to being called out on appeal.
Let's change the facts from what happened in the video that you posted in the first post in this thread. Let's say the ball REALLY got away from F2 and that AFTER being obstructed by F3, the B/R attempted to go to third base (instead of going back to first base as he did in the video). Then, let's say that the B/R missed second base on the way to third base.
In this case, the B/R would be liable to being called out on appeal. The obstruction occurred 60 to 45 feet away from second base (between first and second). Under my scenario, the obstruction had nothing to do with the B/R missing second base.
Now, back to the original facts: By analogy (since you've raised this as a possibility) the obstruction did not cause the base coach to physically assist the runner. Thus, B/R has to be out, ball remains live.
I know it feels, to some, "wrong" to call a runner out on this play when the defense obstructed. But this feeling is wrong. BOTH teams committed a violation. Are we going to reward the offense just because the defense committed their violation first?