Obstruction?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

One can not claim a player is "doing what he is suppose to do" if he was 'violating a rule". "Doing what he is supposed to be doing" and "violating a rule" are mutually exclusive phrases. If he is "doing what he is supposed to be doing" and not violating a rule, you've got nothing. But there are times when a player is "doing what he is supposed to be doing", then suddenly "violate a rule", which some might think is the case here

Fair enough ... and I assume that's what YOU meant.

But I hate the phrase because so many (coaches, fans, even umpires who don't really study or visit sites like this) use it to ignore or trump the rules. Especially obstruction, sometimes interference. Heard it once from a partner trying to describe why he didn't call a batter out when they dropped the bat on a ball they had hit ... "But he's required to drop the bat, he was only doing what he is supposed to do." And another who runs a FB site dedicated to umpires used that phrase to ignore OBS on a F3 who jumped toward a BR and obstructed them on an errant throw they had no chance of catching.