Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Quote:
Originally posted by DG
"If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his miss of such base cannot be upheld".
|
You put this in quotes: where's it from?
As a blanket statement, I cannot believe it is correct.
vis: BR is obstructed from touching 1st as in the original sitch, is now standing fat & happy on 2d, making no effort to return. D appeals the miss, I've got an out. Does your mileage vary?
|
DG has provided the page number, but in case you have a different edition, it appears in Chapter 15 --Obstruction about 2.5 pages in, just under the section "Ruling on Obstruction." Although this blanket statement appears to be at variance with normal practice in awarding bases, I believe it is necessary. Consider this situation: R1 and B/R hits a fly ball which just goes over F8's head. B/R is prevented from touching first because F3 is standing on the bag, but chooses to continue to second, and is safe. The umpire calls obstruction, and decides to protect the B/R to second. Now there is no award-- the runner has attained the base he was protected to. If by rule the runner were subject to appeal for missing first base, then enterprising defenses would routinely obstruct the runner from touching first base, knowing that the runner's only safety is to stop at first. Sure, B/R will be awarded second, but the defense improves its chances of preventing R1 from scoring, or if R1 can score, of B/R advancing to third during the play at the plate.
Fri May 27, 2005, 03:06am
Threaded Mode
