[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by bbsbvb83

Manny,

I think the wording of the ruling for (b) in this case play is poor. 8-4-3b PENALTY a, EXCEPTION 2 reads as follows:

2. When properly appealed for missing a base or leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched while advancing. If obstruction occurred while a runner was returning to touch the base, she is protected.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this: If the runner is obstructed while advancing to third, she should still be declared out upon proper appeal. If the runner is obstructed while returning to second, she should not be called out upon appeal, and should be awarded a minumum of second base.

As to why the case play (b) ruling states that the umpire should award her the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction, I have to believe the NFHS was attempting to point out that the runner could possibly be awarded a base beyond second, although it is difficult to imagine a situation where it would be appropriate to do so.

This articulates where I am trying to go.

I also read it this way.