|
So Dakota how do you handle a runner rounding 1st who runs into the 1st baseman and meekly returns to 1st but in your mind you have assessed that the runner would have made second if he or she had not been obstructed. I have seen this situation occur on the ball field.
I do not believe that a runner has to make an indication for the next base in order to be awarded that base. Our job is to determine by our judgement what the runner would have made if no obstruction. Granted it is a whole lot easier if the runner continues to advance, but if he or she does not then we still have to make a judgement independent of the runner's actions. That is how I understand the rule and how to apply it.
Finally, we find the use of the word would in the obstruction case in a conditional sentence which expresses a contigency or possibility which in our case gets us to could being synonymous with would. There is a whole lot of could in would. I do not believe the intent or desire aspect of would is involved in the obstruction case; the possibility and ability aspect is our concern IMHO.
[Edited by ronald on Apr 11th, 2003 at 12:17 PM]
|