Not true, it gives the defense no benefit, nor hamper the offense from taking advantage of a muffed throw. It certainly does not limit the runner to anything. The ruling simply permits them to reach the base they would have reached had the obstruction not occured. There is nothing stopping them from taking advantage of a defensive miscue, it just doesn't give them a free pass because they saw your arm sticking out.

Your statement infers the obstruction was meant to slow the runner down because the defense <b>knew</b> they were going to muff the throw.

Say the runner is knocked to the ground by F3 as the ball is fielded by F9 and maybe they would have reached 2B safely. Okay, you are going to award 2B when this is done. While the player is still on the ground, the throw goes through F6's legs and is fielded 15' up the 3B line. The player is still laying on the ground near 1B. F5 tosses the ball to F1 who lets it get by. The ball is picked-up by F3 who tags the runner still on the ground. You kill the ball. Are you going to award this runner on the ground home based on a defense kicking the ball around the infield? I would hope not.

Am I being facetious? Yes, but I believe no more than your logic above. Remember, the rule's effect is not of a punitive nature, but to make allowances for something which should not have happened.

Of course, this may all be changed down the road and I have no problem going the other way, either. As I said, just doing my job which includes taking direction from those in authority to offer it.

I agree with Cecil here in that I believe that the umpire should judge the <b>effect</b> of the obstruction <b>at the time</b> of the obstruction (i.e. did the runner lose 2 steps or 4) and apply that judgement to the end of the play if necessary.

SamC