Quote:
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.
|
Yeah, I fell asleep at the switch on this one. I went directly to the case book instead of checking the rule book.
What I find interesting with FED's interp is this: Suppose the runner is obstructed heading back to her base that she left too soon from, but the obstruction doesn't occur between that base and the next advanced base.
For example, suppose R1 at first is running on the pitch, and she's almost halfway to third base when the ball is caught in the outfield. As she hightails it back to first, she gets obstructed by F6 just short of second base. The throw back to first beats her by ten steps.
In that case, she wouldn't be protected because the obstruction happened between second and third, not first and second. Why set up for such an inconsistency? IMHO, the same standard should apply since she screwed up in the first place by leaving the base too early.
Ahhh, the mysteries of writing the rules...
