Another Obstruction play...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Wade, I think you are starting to see the rule, now; you were half reading it. Once you actually reread, you will see there is no conflict, as you are reading the runner can be out, but not that whole sentence. It actually says (8-5.B.3) "If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base which would have been reached OR advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred. EFFECT: The obstructed runner will be called out."

So, you have the base you would award; runner cannot be out at first base. You have the protection between the two bases; runner cannot be out between first and second. Only if the runner passes BOTH forms of protection (goes past second) is the runner in jeopardy.

Here is a coach who understood the rule, and did the right thing sending the runner; the runner cannot be out at second, so why not try for the base? Coach SHOULD know, same as an umpire, that the worst case on this obstruction is dead ball, runner gets award at first base. Umpire MUST signal that obstruction; coach may then interpret what protection exists at his own risk.

Should the rule be rewritten? I think that the entire rule and the POE have been editted piecemeal over the years, so that there is no longer a fluid relationship in the text. I particularly think that the "OR" in the one part I quoted is misleading, and should be more correctly an "and". I doubt the rule sections can be redone effectively, since they have so many scattered thoughts; I do think the POE could and should be rewritten and the "or" made an "and" as an editorial correction.

None of the rewrites I suggest change the rule; they could do a much better job of defining and explaining it.