View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 31, 2010, 05:05pm
CecilOne CecilOne is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueit View Post
But that's what's been suggested above. Umpire should award a base (a "more than halfway" rule of thumb was suggested) to a runner who hasn't been affected by the obstruction. The runner was rounding 2B when the obs. occurred at home plate.

Or in the 8.4.3 Sit A example, the runner between 1B & 2B wasn't affected by the obstruction occurring at SS. Yet is she awarded 2B? (She can't be put on 1B, where the batter is.)
As above, the timing of the OBS has nothing to do with the placement of other runners. Because time out is required on an apparent putout (the non-out above) of an obstructed runner, we must do something with the other runners. In the OP, the runner can't be left standing between 2nd and 3rd, or in the case, left standing between 1st and 2nd.

Rule 8.4.3,b penalty A defines when the dead ball / time out is called. Besides any other runners affected by the OBS, placement of additional runners is a judgement. No advancement on their own can occur with time out or a dead ball. The other runner(s) are not "awarded" bases, they are placed on a base because they have to be on one or the other.

Whether the time out makes sense to you is not the point, it is the prescribed procedure; so we are stuck with the result.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote