Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Mike, I understand your position, I just don't think the prior ruling was completely meeting the intent
|
you just had to use that word, didn't you
Quote:
|
to negate the affect of the obstruction. Certainly following runners could stop; but why should they have to?
|
Because that would help them avoid violating the rules
Quote:
Yes, they have coaches that can tell them to stop, but that stopping means the defense now has gained an advantage that the rules don't intend them to have. The defense didn't make a play that the offense needs to react to, the defense violated the offense's right to run the bases unhindered.
We can certainly play what-if's until the cows come home, but if the whole concept of an obstruction award is to negate any advantage the defense may have gained, and any disadvantage to the offense that may have resulted, we just shouldn't be ignoring the impact on following runners.
|
The defense gains absolutely no advantage. And you say, "Balderdash! How do they not gain an advantage?!?!" And my response would be, "because I will award every runner affected by the OBS the bases they would had attained had the OBS not occurred, just like every umpire is supposed to do.
Quote:
If trailing R2 misses 2nd base because she just missed 2nd, of course honor that appeal. If R2 causes interference, make that ruling. But if R2 is kept from running the bases because R1 was knocked in the dirt, then I think we should be protecting all the affected runners.
To do otherwise only promotes the general consensus that the defense really loses nothing but committing obstruction. At worst (to the defense), the offense gets what it would have had; but sometimes, the offense gets less. This is one attempt at fixing that.
|
See, I don't think anything needed fixing. Now, if you are suggesting that the interpretation was changed to counter inept umpiring, well.........well, there are so many ways I could go with that.