Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
DG,
Tim's association's decision strikes me as entirely consistent with the following from the 2008 Fed Rulebook (p.68, POE, Obstruction)
JM
|
Actually, the association's decision is ambiguous, at least as state by Tim. He mentions cases where the throw pulls the fielder into the path of the runner. Note that this is NOT what the POE says: the POE mentions the fielder, runner, AND THE BALL converging.
Two cases: throw is way offline, pulling the fielder into the runner's path, but the fielder cannot get the ball: this is OBS.
A train wreck: throw is a little offline, pulling the fielder into the runner's path, and the fielder has or might have the ball at the time of collision: this is NOT OBS.
Not every collision between fielder and runner is a "train wreck," if by that we mean to say that the fielder was not obstructing the runner.
I had a situation like this last weekend. R2 stealing, F2 throws over F5's head into LF. F5 lands on the runner, and I call OBS. Coach wanted to know why the contact wasn't incidental (that is, a "train wreck"), and I pointed out that the fielder didn't have the ball, so the fielder could not hinder the runner. Then he asked whether the contact was accidental, to which I answered yes, but accidental does not entail incidental.