Ripped from the news wire..

[LDUB]

Originally posted by DG
The obstruction (an illegal act) caused the runner to hurdle (another illegal act). Absent the obstruction there would be no hurdle.

Let's say there is no rule against hurdling. When are you calling the obstruction? Before the hurdle, or after the runner starts to hurdle?

By the time the runner gets close enough to the fielder to call obstruction, he will have started his hurdle. Looks to me like the hurlde came first.

[JEAPU2000]

Originally posted by DG
The obstruction (an illegal act) caused the runner to hurdle (another illegal act). Absent the obstruction there would be no hurdle. It seems logical to me to penalize the first illegal act, but the FED case book says otherwise, no doubt ruling on the side of safety. [/B]

I guess you have to ask how the obstruction caused the runner to hurdle. He could have gone around. It still would be obstruction and he still would score. I guess if the catcher suddenly popped out in front of the runner and left the runner no choice but to contact/hurdle that's one thing. But the defense's actions generally do not exempt runners from doing what they're supposed to do (touching bases or tagging properly on dead ball base awards, etc.)

[DG]

Originally posted by JEAPU2000

I guess you have to ask how the obstruction caused the runner to hurdle. He could have gone around. It still would be obstruction and he still would score. I guess if the catcher suddenly popped out in front of the runner and left the runner no choice but to contact/hurdle that's one thing. But the defense's actions generally do not exempt runners from doing what they're supposed to do (touching bases or tagging properly on dead ball base awards, etc.) [/B]

Too much thought being put into this. If a runner who knows he can't crash a catcher reaches a point of no return he might decide to hurdle without stopping to think about in. Absent a rule about hurdling he would most likely just crash into a catcher who is blocking his way to the plate. I can't read his mind, I simply stated that the obstruction could have come first, but FED wants hurdling to take precedent over obstruction. If the hurdle happened with the ball still in the SS hand, it would be easy to decide if obstruction or hurdling happened first, but FED wants hurdling to hold precedent.
I'm through with this subject. The last half dozen or so times I saw a runner try to hurdle the catcher, he had the ball. Why didn't he try to go around you say? I have no idea.