Things I learned this weekend...... - Page 2

Bandit · #16 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 01:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
Bandit - a fielder in the basepath without the ball.. BY ITSELF is not obstruction.

A fielder in the basepath without the ball THAT HINDERS OR ALTERS THE PATH OF THE RUNNER is obstruction.

The POE ignores this VERY important piece of the puzzle, and leads people who read it (especially assistant coaches who don't actually look at the rule) to believe that the runner's actions are irrelevant to the case (or, in one case I had to deal with - the EXISTENCE of a runner is irrelevant - the guy insisted that this POE meant that fielders could not be in the basepaths AT ALL).

Thank You, very good points.

BretMan · #17 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 02:05pm

Mike writes:

#1. It IS catcher's obstruction
#2. This rule change was submitted because the previous wording restricted the advancement as it used the word "only" which would definitely cause consternation among some and I can see an umpire saying, "hey, your right!" and make the batter bat again.

I submitted this change as a direct result of discussion on this board.

That was me that brought this up, not here, but on another board.

See it here: http://eteamz.active.com/fastpitch/b...cfm?id=1397645

At the time, you said you would follow-up. Glad to see that you did! Cool!

Now, if we can only have this rule renamed as "The Bret Rule"...