Double Obstruction

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota
...except there is nothing "automatic" about the base award. The base is awarded that, in the umpire's judgment, the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction.

When the umpire judges the runner would have achieved x-base, the obstructed runner WILL end up on that base either by advancing to it during the play or by being awarded the base after the play UNLESS the runner either
a) Chooses to continue her advance beyond that base, or
b) Commits some infraction that results in her being declared out (valid appeal, interference).
[/b]

You want to argue over the definition of "automatic"? Jeez, get a life.

8-5-B-4 clearly says that the umpire is to make the award. ASA Case Plays back this up. The fact that the award is ALSO made if the player is put out prior to reaching the base and the fact that the rule could use some editing to keep up with the change in the OBS rule is beside the point and does NOT invalidate the rule.

With regard to the way it is written, I would suggest that 8-5-B-4 is being taken out of context. This is the only time that the word "award" is used, and not connected with "and is put out". Typos and errors are usually exceptions. In the case, the correct rule is the exception. If 8-5-B-4 is the only correct entry in the book, then it is time for a new book.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what year this rule changed?

I can't speak for how you are evaluated, but if they are ASA evaluators and they are telling you that the runner must be put out before there can be an award, your evaluators are wrong, too.

I never said my evaluators told me what I have posted. There are several rules that I do not agree with, or do not make sense. But I call them the way I am expected to.