View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 31, 2013, 09:03am
Manny A Manny A is offline
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
Most consider a "rounding" obstruction to have hindered the runner both before and after the base. In other words, we should protect the runner throughout the act of obstruction, not just the location at the first instant of the obstruction.
That's an interesting perspective that I've never heard before. I certainly don't disagree with it. I would never think that your could "carry" an obstruction infraction before, on, and after the base.

But if that's the case, then why do we still hold a runner liable for missing a base that she was obstructed from touching? If she can't be put out at either base, shouldn't we ignore the base miss? I know the rules make this a requirement.

Suppose the BR in the OP misses first base because of F3's position, and reaches second safely. An appeal at first by the defense would be upheld. That goes against what she should be afforded since the obstruction as she rounds the base should protect her at first and second.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote