Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Welpe
Why are choosing to ignore authoritative interpretations from several sources that contradict your ruling?
|
I'm assuming you mean the post below, I'll address it briefly. BTW, I'm not trying to be the guy to argue the opposite point to be an a$$. Just don't want to be pointed out to be
that guy. Just want to discuss this thoroughly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RichMSN
This reminds me of "I strenusouly object" from A Few Good Men. In other words.......so?
But you got me to dig out my BRD.
NCAA: If in the umpire's judgment, obstruction occurred near enough to a base so that it prevented the runner from conveniently touching the bag, a subsequent appeal at the base would be denied. [Fetchiet, 4/20/2001]
OBR: Fitzpatrick agreed with Fetchiet (12/26/01) but added the umpire must be absolutely certain the obstruction kept the runner from the base.
FED: Silent. Carl recommends you treat the same as NCAA, and I agree.
|
Convenience? When does convenience come into a play? It would be convenient if the bases were 80 feet for me and 110 feet for everyone else. I won't argue if that's the official interpretation of NCAA but I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation. (With that said, I would call it in accordance of the interpretation). But for argument's sake, anytime there is obstruction it is inconvenient to the runner. By nature obstruction is always inconvenient. Does that mean if obstruction occurs close to the base (within 5-8 feet), the runner should just take off to the following base without attempting to touch the base? I would think not.
Can I ask this...If the runner would have stopped at first, in the OP, because they wanted to touch first, would you award the runner second? I would as an umpire.
Secondly, if you had a play that I mentioned in post #16 and the runner made it home successfully, wouldn't you just ignore the obstruction? Or would you stop play after everything was said and done and then call obstruction on the third baseman and award the runner what he already gained
I think not. Once the runner gains what he is entitled by the obstruction award, the obstruction is simply ignored...correct?
I would apply that to the OP. Once he has gained the award he is entitled, I would ignore the obstruction. Does anyone follow my logic (whether it's right or wrong)?
Thanks for the great discussion everyone!
-Josh