WS obstruction

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So you mean you think the rule should be changed? THat might have some merit as a discussion, but the rule as it is was correctly applied.

No sir, I don't feel the rule needs to be changed. I do not, however, feel it was correctly applied in this case. I feel the phrase everybody seems to be pointing to ("continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner") was not met in this case, unless you feel less than a second of inactivity constitutes a continuing act. I don't think it does.

The fielder was lying where he was because he was doing what he was supposed to be doing. To me this was a train wreck (or fender bender), not OBS.

[EsqUmp]

If obstruction required intent, you can basically delete the entire rule.

[yankeesfan]

Just a reminder if someone could please answer post #32 please. Thanks

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

No sir, I don't feel the rule needs to be changed. I do not, however, feel it was correctly applied in this case. I feel the phrase everybody seems to be pointing to ("continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner") was not met in this case, unless you feel less than a second of inactivity constitutes a continuing act. I don't think it does.

The fielder was lying where he was because he was doing what he was supposed to be doing. To me this was a train wreck (or fender bender), not OBS.

You completely misunderstand obstruction then. It's really very simple - with a few exceptions that don't apply here, a fielder cannot impede the runner's progress. Period. At all. All the umpire needs to see here is that the runner's progress was impeded by a fielder who didn't have the ball. Done. Obstruction. No thought required. No judgement needed.