What's the call?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

By rule, yes.

I'm going to disagree withe that blanket statement. Nothing in the rule declares it obstruction if a defensive player is in any base path yet does not hinder or impede a runner. Paraphrasing to "altering a path" may be true in many cases, but is NOT true in the case of a runner still rounding 2nd and pointing at F5 50' away in the vicinity of 3rd.

If the rule was so simple and obvious, every runner should alter a running path between every base as long as any defensive player is on the field, because they could "never be out". The rule still requires a runner to actually be hindered or impeded by the defense; disadvantaged in some way. It is not obstruction for runners to change or alter a path (in and of itself) if the defense doesn't improperly create the need to do so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm going to disagree withe that blanket statement. Nothing in the rule declares it obstruction if a defensive player is in any base path yet does not hinder or impede a runner. Paraphrasing to "altering a path" may be true in many cases, but is NOT true in the case of a runner still rounding 2nd and pointing at F5 50' away in the vicinity of 3rd.

If the rule was so simple and obvious, every runner should alter a running path between every base as long as any defensive player is on the field, because they could "never be out". The rule still requires a runner to actually be hindered or impeded by the defense; disadvantaged in some way. It is not obstruction for runners to change or alter a path (in and of itself) if the defense doesn't improperly create the need to do so.

You know, I should have thought that through in terms of what should be called on the field. I'm killing that post.
Having a fielder in a possible path and not impeding the runner; seems analogous to having a BR or R in the "path" of a throw which is not made.