Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M
I don't see the ambiguity.
|
Bear in mind, this is an "academic" discussion, not me questioning the rule.
The ambiguity is that the rule say OBS is called if the defender is blocking a base, not that the fielder blocking the base is OBS.
The "literal wording" leaves a gap between "obstruction is called" and being obstruction because it does not include hindrance or literally saying the blocking is OBS.
The wording could imply a connotation that the OBS is called for the sake of the penalty (where it says "obstruction is called") and not because it is OBS.
Yes, I know, semantics and all that, but an example for discussion to allow better understanding of other similar rule wording.
Also, it says base line not base path.