Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
Once again, an example of a rule that contradicts what seems right and fair.
|
I'm not so sure about that. IMO, the obstruction rule for the most part is an infraction without a penalty, and so taking advantage of whatever penalty is available under the rules seems appropriate to me, even if it is only in SOME cases.
I understand the argument that automatically awarding at least one base was viewed my many as too harsh a penalty for minor obstruction, and just led to it not being called at all.
But as the rule stands, the defense can block a runner with the only result being what the runner would have gotten anyway IF the umpire sees it and IF he calls it.
This means the defense can gain a benefit if the umpire does not see/call with no penalty if he does.
This means many coaches teach obstruction as part of "good" hardnosed defense.
Furthermore, good hardnosed base runners may decide to "take out" obstructing fielders, and draw an USC against themselves - even more to gain by the defense.
Bottom line: I don't shed no tears for the defense in any obstruction call.