Quote:
Originally Posted by ncaaumpdj
Here is a situation that has made me go hmmmmm?
NCAA ONLY:
(B)While returning to 3rd base to touch missed base R1 is obstructed again by F5 intentionally to prevent her from touching 3rd In (A) i would say the runner is out on live ball appeal. Using 9.3.3-9.3.3.6 which states:
9.3.3 An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where
she was obstructed unless one of the following occurs:
9.3.3.2 When another violation is being played upon.
A.R. 9.3.3.2: A runner who leaves second base too soon on a touched fly ball is
returning after the ball is caught and is obstructed between second and third base.
RULING: If the runner would not have returned safely to second base before the
throw arrived, she would remain out.
9.3.3.6 A proper appeal is made for missing a base.
A.R. 9.3.3.6: A runner who misses a base or leaves a base before a fly ball is first
touched and is obstructed while advancing would not be protected when returning to
the base missed or left too soon.
My main question is do we protect a runner who has been obstructed while returning to touch a missed base?(like in situation (B) and (C)
I believe the intent of 9.3.3.6 is to put the responsibility on the runner for missing the base and not protect her for not legally completing her base running responsibilities. But do we allow the defense to prevent her from touching a missed base? If yay or nay what rule supports it?
|
Okay, call the out. Obviously, I think this is something you have to see, but if the rule says out, its out.
Now, in the case of (B), do you have the possibility of an USC ejection of F5 depending on how intentional her actions were?