|
FWIW, there is one kind of obstruction, under NCAA 9.4.2.9 when a fielder gets in the batter's line of vision to distract her, where a warning and an ejection for a subsequent violation does apply. So there are more than one "type" of obstruction that specifically requires, by rule, a warning. And this particular situation does follow with an ejection for a subsequent violation by the same player.
Also, obstruction violations listed under NCAA 9.4.2.1 through 9.4.2.5 do allow for umpires to award one base should a fielder be a repeat offender. While the Effect section for those situations does not specifically state that a warning is needed, you would logically conclude that a warning should be issued; otherwise, how would we know a defender is a repeat offender?
So, let's look at two specific situations under that group of rules. One involves a fielder intentionally altering her motion to field a batted or thrown ball to purposely obstruct the runner. The other involves a fake tag.
Umpires are allowed to eject players for unsporting behavior. If a player repeatedly violates these two types of obstruction, wouldn't you consider that unsporting behavior that would warrant an ejection?
Perhaps that's a stretch. Maybe it's more appropriate to deal with these repeated violations using 6.19.1.5 and declare a forfeit as opposed to ejecting the player. I just don't see where we should simply issue one-base awards for willful repeat violations by the same player.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
|