Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
No, you're not, but so what? And where does the rule I quoted say anything about discussion?
|
Where did I say it did?
Quote:
Am I the only one to notice that the OP specifically states that the judgment of 3B on the second obstruction was based only on where the runner was at the time of the obstruction? Each OBS judgment was made as a stand-alone judgment.
The concept of where the runner would have been had the first obstruction not occurred is what is missing from the second judgment.
|
No, it is not.
BU resignals the obstruction, and based on where the ball is and where the runner is, again decides that based on this OBS alone, she should get 3rd.
The OP specifically noted that AFTER the second OBS, the BU STILL had 3B as the award. There is the judgment made by the ruling umpire as instructed in the rule cited.
Quote:
That the conversation with the PU allowed him to think it through is not to be casually thrown out. The two independent judgments are in his head until the base awards are announced, and just as an umpire is allowed to think through the action on any other call before verbalizing, he is allowed to think through the action on this one.
|
Hell, have you heard some of things umpires come up with "justifying" certain rulings? Give me two minutes and I'll talk some umpires into forfeiting a game so we can go watch the NHL playoffs.
And if after the 2nd OBS the BU thought the award should be home, no problem. HOWEVER, that isn't what the OP presented. Its not my play, your play or anyone elses to call, it is the BU and when he saw the 2nd OBS, he thought 3B.
This isn't a tote board where you just keep adding things up like Trapper McIntyre.