Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Runner returning to 2nd; F6 is in basepath 10 feet from runner; runner slows down as F6 moves out of basepath; runner gets tagged out as she returns to 2nd; Umpire calls obstruction.....? and allows runner to be safe at 2nd. That should make for an interesting conversation - I'm sure the defensive coach might have a few questions.
So when was it that you gave the delayed-deadball signal?
Forgive the sarcasm but I think you are stepping beyond the intention of the rules and giving allowances that shouldn't be given.
If a runner slows down or stops or whatever... (because the fielder is in the basepath) RATHER than continuing to run and doing so 12 inches to the left or to the right of the fielder.... and then gets tagged out... My delayed deadball signal never even got out of the closet. I'm ringing the runner out.
Perhaps this is a "had to be there" play but I'm not seeing any reason to give the runner some special allowance to quit running or slow down because there might possibly, maybe, could happen to be a collision. It would have to be very obvious that the play was pending and that the runner was very obviously forced to change her running path and that minute difference in timing caused an out to be made. I would never call obstruction when the runner slowed down or gave up or quit trying with the same energy and enthusiam as she had in the beginning of the play.
Same goes for not calling Batter-runner interference because possibly, maybe this time, or on this day with the sun in her eyes... F3 couldn't possibly catch the ball. Not only has F3 been denied opportunity to prove herself (due to the interference) but you as an umpire have guessed someone safe and F3 incapable. I think the rule intends for you to assume this is a running error and not a fielder error.
|
Yep, I was ready to overlook the sarcasm until you made the ludicrous statement about F3 having the sun in her eyes.
Point A: No one ever assigned a runner to fielder distance ratio, but I can understand that is the only way to prove your point.
Point B: You don't want to call obstruction, yet you would expect the runner to alter the basepath to allow for a fielder that you insist isn't obstructing the runner. Well, if the fielder isn't obstructing the runner, why would they need to alter their course?
Point C: The obstruction rule does not give a runner any special allowances. It simply protects them from being put out when they are impeded by a defender who has no entitlement to any part of the field.
Point D: "I would never call obstruction when the runner slowed down or gave up or quit trying with the same energy and enthusiam as she had in the beginning of the play." You expect others not to make anticipatory judgment, which no one claimed to being with, yet you reserve the right to determine when and why a player slowing down permits you to circumvent the rules of the game. Instead, you would rather the player proceed hell-bent on reaching their goal while doing so may possibly place runner and fielder in jeopardy of serious injury before considering obstruction.
And here I thought we were discussing officiating softball. I must have been mistaken.
The Carnacs of this thread have long passed me by. I'm done with this one.
Mike