This ties for the most juvenile and sophomoric post on the internet.

Really? Because I found it quite descriptive and amusing myself. Perhaps I'm just a Peter Pan type personality, and remain forever young at heart.

Steve --

I'm not trying to excuse PWL's behavior. When you post crap like that, you sink, imo, to his level. It removes any reason you have to whine about his posts.

After pondering this question a day or so, I have another question.

Situation: R1, # outs doesn't matter. Pitcher attempts pick-off at first as runner breaks for second, R1 involved in rundown between first and second and while slidding back into first is obstructed by defensive player without ball. Doesn't the runner automatically get second base or is he only entitled to first?

Given the question on the exam and the subsequent answer that the umpire would have to have judged the runner would have made it home if he wasn't obstructed. In my situation, the answer would have to be that R1 is NOT entitled to second but only first because infact when he was obstructed he wasn't even attempting for second but first.

Now your talking umpiring!!! :D

I found my own answer. Difference between obstruction A and obstruction B.

The first issue is whether to call obstruction. NCAA, I believe, has a tighter criterion, and so lacking the ball (and hindering the runner) would be sufficient for obstruction. For FED and OBR, not so: if a play is imminent, the fielder may block the bag.

But if the obstruction is clear, then the penalty also depends on the ruleset. In FED, runner gets his advance base. In OBR type A, runner gets the base he was trying to get, in this case 1B.

That's not the correct OBR ruling -- the runner is awarded a minimum of one base on type A obstruction, no matter which direction he was running during the obstruction.

I beg your pardon. That's right, of course. Not sure what I was thinking of, except the so-called "agent intellect" (don't worry, that's from my day job not baseball). Thanks, Bob.