Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
Why do you have to assume that? Why not assume that the rationale is what Steve said? To whit, that we are trying to place the obstructed runner as well as possible and are simply going to move the rest of the runners around as needed regardless of who benefits from that change.
Even with your assumption though, I'm not sure it's as bad as you're making it out. In the scenario where the runner successfully makes it back, the trailing runner does not legally have second. (It belongs to the lead runner not forced to vacate it). So technically you're not taking away anything from the offense that they have. (On the flip side though, you're not giving them an extra base which you would on the other side.)
So that gets me thinking. On Saturday I saw a team that didn't seem to have ever explained to their players that two players can't occupy the same base. And the other team committed a lot of obstruction. Fortunately not at the same time, but suppose they had. Take this situtation:
R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st. Passed ball. R1 holds, R2 takes off for second running squarely into F4. R2 would easily have been the second player standing on second if she hadn't been obstructed. As it is she gets up and is thrown out on her way back to first. I think I'm putting her back on first since in my mind absent the obstruction she would never have legally attained 2nd base. Problematic to anyone?
|
Yeah...i have a problem with that.
I get that the obstruction rule is not a punitive rule, but only sets things back to the way they would have been absent the obstruction.
In your situation, however, your solution encourages the defense to obstruct since at worst, nothing changes and at best, they get an out. I'm more inclined to rule that the obstructed runner is awarded second and the other runner is awarded third because they were affected by the obstruction.
I have always been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense in an obstruction scenario.