Foot on base

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I know the NFHS means well, but this has got to be the most idiotic thing they've ever come up with.

The intention was to keep the defense from blocking the base without the ball. Well, the interpretation then SHOULD'VE been that the runner decides what access he wants and that is the path that must be kept open.

As it sits now, fielders can still block the most likely path a runner is going to take (back of the base, for example on a pickoff at second base, or the most direct route to a base on a normal play) and essentially take the base away from the runner.

I'm just not that good. I'll just call obstruction if a fielder without a ball keeps a runner taking a reasonable path to the base from the base. He didn't have access, I'll say. No real response to that, is there?

My response is if you base your call relying on your own misguided information of what you think the rule should be rather than what the rule is then you will be wrong 100% of the time. The integrity of umpiring surely is not being preserved on your field is it?

Idiotic? That is not the word for it. There was nothing wrong with the obstruction rule in the first place. Too many low skilled players were being called out and that hurt their self-esteem and they went to the dugout crying.

As far as NF means well...we should be more concerned that they have told us that going to the mouth is a balk while in contact with the rubber but they still have not provided a rule to uphold the call. (This was discussed in an earlier thread).

Whether the rules committee or an umpire is involved, when we prostitute the rules by making interpretations that are not supported by rule or clearly are opposed to written rule then the integrity of the game is compromised.