Quote:
Originally Posted by mroyal
How do you work around the first part of that rule: 8.3.1?
When a runner is obstructed (2-22) while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.
In the OP, R2 is attempting to return to 2nd (not going to 3rd) and is put out due to an OB. Since he's not attempting to run to 3rd, he would be awarded 2nd since that's the base he's attempting to reach/return to. Thus the defense is penalized by not getting the out. |
mroyal,
That is just flat out wrong. In the OP, the obstructed R2 is properly awarded 3B.
I "get around" the part of the rule you underlined by reading the entire rule. Especially the part that says:
Quote:
|
...The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. ...
|
I also read the case plays that have a runner obstructed while "returning" to a base who is awarded an advance base. (e.g. 8.3.2A, 8.3.2B(b) ).
The rule is certainly poorly worded, but in FED an obstructed runner is always awarded "one base beyond".
JM