Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
My suggestion for dealing with coached obstruction is to give the umpire the option of awarding one additional base to the one the runner would have achieved if, in the umpires judgment, the obstruction was intentional.
|
Could not support this ruling. This would cause nothing but headaches and basically give permission to umpires who like to use a FYC to do so. You would have runners running at defenders and when the defenders move, the offensive coach would be screaming for an "intentional" obstruction call. Seems to me, as umpires, we have a few other things to worry about on the field than that type of BS.
Quote:
|
So, in Mikes scenario, if the runner moved toward 2B and then changed her mind and returned to 1B, I could award 2B on the would have achieved part of the rule, and then 3B on the intentional part of the rule. Even if most umpires did not make the full award or even call obstruction, the 1 in 4 who did would put a damper on coached obstruction, dont you think?
|
Once again, though an umpire may take a player's movement into consideration, it is not a requirement in awarding bases.
Nonetheless, it seems some are too hung up on movement and intent which are not addressed in any part of the rule. Next to the Infield Fly rule, I think ASA's obstruction rule is one of the easiest to understand as long as you don't try to read too much into the rule. Only ISF's is easier.