![]() |
|
|
|
|||
|
Sure, why not? Couldn't you argue that because the obstruction prevented the lead runner from touching home, the trail runner was also affected by the obstruction because she had to stop in order to let the lead runner legally touch the plate? That would seem cleaner than ignoring that the obstructed runner can no longer legally touch the plate when the trail runner scored, and using 10.1 as justification.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
|
While it's not unreasonable to require R1 to complete her responsibilities (and rely on us to properly rule on the OBS), I think it'd be too much to ask of R2 to do the same (hold up short of the plate while R1 touches).
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Good luck selling that to a player or coach. BTW, that used to be the suggested action when an OBS runner went down, that the trailing runner not pass and allow the umpire to make the appropriate ruling. That changed at the 2011(or 2013) UIC Clinic when an updated interpretation was offered. Personally, I would love if it were that simple, but it is not. I stand by my previous post. And 10.1 isn't a justification, it is authorization.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Missed-base appeal -- does first run count? | bw22 | Baseball | 6 | Fri Apr 16, 2010 01:52am |
| Missed Base/Appeal | Lapopez | Baseball | 19 | Sat Oct 31, 2009 03:32pm |
| Missed Base Appeal | tibear | Baseball | 7 | Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:45am |
| Missed base and appeal. | Illini_Ref | Baseball | 10 | Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:57pm |