Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy
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.
|
How does it encourage them to obstruct? If they don't obstruct, they get an out (likely, at least) because they have two runners on 2nd - and any competent defense should be able to get an out in that situation. If they do obstruct, they lose the opportunity for that out.
The question you, the umpire, should be asking yourself is - what would have happened had there been no obstruction (without awarding an out) - the BEST result the offense could have in this situation, without assuming some error somewhere, is for R2 to make it back to first safely.