View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 13, 2010, 01:53pm
celebur celebur is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIBlueASA View Post
It was bothersome to me to think, because the rule states, that we have to "award" her third - when in reality, she merely would have been out by 40 feet instead of 43 feet.
I used to be bothered by this too. . .until I changed my attitude. Rather than thinking of this as an award, think of it as a punishment. Send the runner to 3B as punishment for the defense doing something they weren't supposed to do.

Quote:
I think you hit it on the head when you said that we have to determine what base she would have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred.

I would, under these circumstances, more than likely call out and state that the obstruction was irrelevant to her making third safely.
Once you admit that there was obstruction, you're inviting a protest if you still call the runner out. Rather than say the obstruction was irrelevant, I think it would be better to say that you saw no obstruction.
Reply With Quote