[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The primary thought process in the obstruction rule is to put the obstructed runner where he/she would have ended up if there had been no obstruction. Other runners are a secondary consideration, and were probably not even considered in older versions of the rule, rather became involved with decades of tweaking when "what if" situations came true at ASA Nationals.

If you are going to move the obstructed runner up, it is apparent you have to push a lead runner up. Maybe not how the play would have ended if no obstruction, maybe even would have put two runners on a base resulting in an out; but if your primary thought is the obstructed runner, then it seems obvious that runner pushes the lead runner when awarded the next base.

Using the same primary philosophy, if you have to move the obstructed runner back because the forward base is undeserved, then you have to push trailing runners back, too. After all, it's certainly better than the out that you judge would have been the result without obstruction, and you have protected that runner from the out, just not to the forward base.

Thank you for playing.

I have to assume that the reason for advancing an undeserved runner up to accommodate the award is a matter of not penalizing the offense for a defense's missive. But if you are not going to penalize the offense in this scenario, why are you going to penalize them by pushing a runner back from a deserved base attained during a live ball situation?