Question on obstruction

[mcrowder]

In a tie game in the last inning, I may accept those ejections in lieu of a home run.

But take obvious intent out of the equation. Take what is a likely triple. Let F3 stand right in front of first base, looking toward the outfield (assume no intent - just not paying attention, or moving toward a position to back up the plate, but still watching the ball). Let F4 drift into the basepath as well. Two solid obstructions, and it's very possible the ball gets into 2nd base near the same time as the runner - are you saying the BR's are trained to GUESS that you would protect to third base, but only if they tried to go to third after the ball is right there at 2nd base?

Let's take a second case. Completely inadvertent OBS with F3 before first base, on a possible home run - but they bang knees, and not only does BR not attempt home --- he doesn't get up from the collision, or hobbles into first base. What's the NZ award? By your previous comments... first base. To me, that's awful.

Like Dakota, I have some issues with our current method. But also like Dakota, the NZ method seems to give enormous advantages to defenses who obstruct, with no realistic penalty for doing so.