View Single Post
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 28, 2013, 01:02pm
bluehair bluehair is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be F2s

My question would be, how would you change the rule to where players will adhere to the no-collision motivation for the rule change. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that players will comply unless you put teeth into the rule change.

It seems that you will have to require fielders (especially F2s) to provide access to the base if they don't possess the ball. Currently, F2s get away with the "in the act of fielding a throw" exemption from obstruction. That would need to go away and make it like Fed's less than perfect "allow access if you don't have the ball yet" requirement. This would partially take away a runner's justification to way-lay F2.

Second, they're going to have to make the "truck F2" penalty significant. If the runner is a dead-meat with or without a collision, why not try to knock the ball loose and put it on the umpire to make the out call (the runner has nothing to loose). If they are going to achieve the desired no-more-collisions objective, then they'll have to include a MC/ejection penalty...possible suspension if they really want to put teeth into rule.
Reply With Quote