Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C
There is one thing that the other umpires are NOT catching that I see.
What if the umpire meant just what he said? That the player only gets the next base? It is entirely possible that he meant just that. It is entirely possible that this umpire doesn't understand that sometimes the umpire is supposed to protect the runner to the base he or she would have reached without the obstruction. It is entirely possible that this umpire thought that one base was the MAXIMUM award possible.
If this is what he meant, then Coach, you had grounds for a protest. If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, there is a MINIMUM award of one base in most codes. Your umpire may have misunderstood this and thought it was a maximum.
By the description of your play, if I had judged what you saw, she would have been awarded home.
|
Well, Dave did touch on this in an early post, but you are absolutely correct. If may have been worth the coach's time to explore this with a follow-up question to the umpire as to what he saw that made him believe it was only one base. If he believed that was THE RULE, a protest is certainly a viable path. Another favorite faux pas on this rule is the, "they have to attempt to advance to get the base". I would love to know where people come up with this stuff, especially "trained" umpires.
The coach may have been correct to send the runner, but for the wrong reason. This is a simple rule that offers the umpire
almost carte blanche authority to undo the damage done. Sometimes I wonder if that simplicity is the reason people try to out think the rule.