View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 23, 2010, 12:14am
UmpTTS43 UmpTTS43 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
I guess I wouldn't have protected R1 to third base
the close play part of the question
is irrelevant. The runner advances at his own peril.
That being said...it's tough to get in the
head of the author of the test.
When you take these tests try to not
read into the questions and you'll be okay
not saying I wouldn't misread some
but when we start to read into more than
what's written the questions are harder.
I understand what you are saying, however, the closeness of a play is relevant. When obstruction occurs on a runner without a play being made on him, you can protect him to the base that he would have attained, in your judgement, had the obstrucion not occured. If R1 would have been out by 10+ feet, I might not have protected him to third, but since it was a "very close play," I might have. That is why there is no definitive answer to questions such as these and you cannot quantify an answer in black and white. As long as we have the understanding of the rules, along with the intent, I'm sure we will be able to correctly apply them during the course of the game.

Last edited by UmpTTS43; Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 12:17am.
Reply With Quote