Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue
In a court of law, there are varying levels of burden of proof. In civil cases, it's "preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, the standard is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases?
|
This question right here is one of my main pet peeves when discussing obstruction around the umpiring room. You require NO PROOF.
Dave said in the OP that he signalled DDB. He should also ... at THAT moment ... made a determination as to where the runner would have gotten to. The runner doesn't need to prove anything - she's been obstructed and her actions now are completely different than they would have been had she not been obstructed. It is OUR JOB to rectify the situation and place the runner where WE feel she would have gotten absent the obstruction. There are no further requirements on the runner (other than running the bases properly, I suppose ... like not passing other runners, etc.)