View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 13, 2003, 10:07am
whiskers_ump whiskers_ump is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: woodville, tx
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally posted by CecilOne
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
... snip with heavy shears ... 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 umpire’s judgment, the obstruction was intentional.
... snip ...
Possibly a good rule change for next year. Will ASA or NFHS do it first?
CecilOne,

As someone in a previous post stated, FED tried this and it seemed
to have a reverse effect. Umpires would not call the OBS because they
would then have to advance a runner that had no intentions of going to
the next base.

It is like the pickoff attempt at 1B when the runner gets back safely
and BU has signalled
OBS and ball gets past F3 and coach seeing blue has called OBS
yells for his runner to get up and go, but an alert F9 has backed the play and
throws runner out at 2B by six feet. Since OBS was signalled his R'er
cannot be put out between the two base OBS occured. You send an out back
to 1B. Before getting into this discussion with Mike and others, I had
always called R'er out and when coach says "Blue you had OBS, why is she out?"
"Coach, I protected her to 1B, which she reclaimed, then you sent her to 2B,
Base beyond my protection."
However, by ASA's and others rule she is protected.

BTW, No coach ever protested that I had misapplied the rule. Guess
that I was lucky. I agree with everyone that says OBS is not called near
as often as it occurs.

JMT,

glen
__________________
glen _______________________________
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things
that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover."
--Mark Twain.
Reply With Quote