![]() |
Quote:
What part don't you like? |
Quote:
If I'm reading him right, Bob P.'s objection is that the FED rule mandates a one base minimum award, even if the obstructed runner would NOT have obtained an advance base absent the obstruction. JM |
FED Rules
Once upon a time I read an article in Referee magazine breaking down the Fed/OBR rules differences based, essentially, on four factors: (1) economics (metal bats); (2) safety (force play slide rule- although I think there is reasonable disagreement on whether that works); (3) time (run rule- 7 innings); and (4) participation (re-entry rule). I am not convinced that the Fed obstruction rule works to further any of those goals. If there is unintentional but also non-malicious obstruction, the award should mirror the OBR rule- award according to the umpire's judgment. If the obstruction is malicious, ejection (also an available remedy in OBR) is plenty of added punishment.
There are other Fed rules I would rewrite if I were in charge. Unfortunately, nobody has asked me yet. My .02. Strikes and outs! |
So, is it a mandatory one base award or judgement?
|
Quote:
Peace |
I call the obstruction and then wait to see what happens. Example, runner is obstructed going toward 3B while ball is in LF, I give the signal and wait to see what happens. The runner is thrown out by F7 at the plate on a close play. In my judgement he is awarded home because absent the obstruction going to 3B he would have been safe. If he was thrown out easily I have nothing, he runs at his own risk past the awarded base (3rd).
I don't like advancing a runner on a type B, when the runner would not have advanced, but that's the FED rule interpretation, although they don't recognize different types of obstruction. There are several FED rules I don't like, but I call 'em, and I don't let the penalty cloud my thinking. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't lose a lot of sleep over FED rules -- they are what they are and I just go out and play umpire. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34pm. |