Obstruction, when judgment is made on protection

[mcrowder]

Andy - if you do so, you're doing so in knowing contradiction to the rulebook. In this particular case, it is obviously the subsequent play (the bobble) that caused the runner to try to obtain home.

WMB - you raise some good points. I'd like to see Mike's responses to them. In both cases, it was your JUDGEMENT that was wrong, and not the existence of a subsequent play. I think in most cases where there was not a bobble or oddball play for the runner (or her coach) to react to (including their seeing of our arm outstretched for obstrucion) - if it appears that the runner would likely have gone for that additional base without the obstruction (or the obstruction call, or a bobble, or a soft throw that she catches sight of, etc), I can see the logic in "revising" your apparently incorrect initial assumption. The book doesn't support it, but I see the logic.

One thing we must ALWAYS strive to avoid is allowing a runner a free shot at a base once our arm goes up for OBS. The rule is not intended to give them a free chance to advance that they would not have attempted without the obstruction call. Let's say that in your second scenario, the runner (or coach) noticed our arm up after the OBS, so she opted to make what she thought was a free attempt at third base. We don't KNOW that she knew F8 had a weak arm (why the heck is she in center field then?!?!) - it's equally possible that the runner was trying to get a free base because of the OBS call then she was making a legitimate play that she'd have made if there was no OBS.