View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 23, 2010, 06:37am
johnnyg08 johnnyg08 is offline
Stop staring at me swan.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by UmpTTS43 View Post
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.
Yes, I can see that side too. Since we can't see the play, we have two different sides that are both possibly correct. If we could see R1 going into 2B, then see what he does before running to 3B...we'd have our answer...I'm still thinking that in this play...the "very close" piece is irrelevant probably based on what the author saw in his mind when writing the question...
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote