The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Another obstruction call (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/27900-another-obstruction-call.html)

mcrowder Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ran.D
Their argument "only the obstructed runner is awarded a base, coach should have brought R1 to third."

Then your boys need to re-read the rule. It specifically states the opposite.

mcrowder Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsig
Technically, the other crews are correct that obstruction only effects the obstructed runner, however, in my opinion we should consider the intent of this rule. It is intended to insure that the defense doesn't get an unfair advantage by hindering base runners. With that in mind, did the defense get an advantage when the BR was kept on 1B? It sounds like they did.
Technically, perhaps a re-read of the rule for you is also in order. You have the intent of the rule right, but not the "technically" part apparently.

Envision a play with R1, BR hits it to the wall. R1 trips over F3 and twists an ankle, laying in the basepath. BR cannot pass R1, so stays at first on what you deem to be a clear double or even triple. BY RULE, you place any runners affected by the obstruction on the bases you deem appropriate, including in this case, BR - even though BR was no obstructed.

IRISHMAFIA Thu Sep 07, 2006 01:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsig
Technically, the other crews are correct that obstruction only effects the obstructed runner, however, in my opinion we should consider the intent of this rule. It is intended to insure that the defense doesn't get an unfair advantage by hindering base runners. With that in mind, did the defense get an advantage when the BR was kept on 1B? It sounds like they did.
Speaking ASA

Technically, the other crews are incorrect.

8.5.B.4.Effect: The obstructed runner and all other runners shall always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction.

This is also clearly covered in POE #36.

The rule and POE clearly permit state that all runners affected by the obstruction are to be awarded the base each would have attained had the obstruction not occured. There is no judgment as to the intent of the rule necessary, just where to place the runner(s).

goldcoastump Thu Sep 07, 2006 02:08pm
Not only is the obstructed runner afforded protection but all runners affected are to be given protection. I don't have my rulebook but I am almost 100% sure on this one. R2 should be on 2nd IMHO.

celebur Fri Sep 08, 2006 08:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
Do you see a difference between a runner being put in jepordy by an act of obstruction, and the following runner being put in jepordy by the action of the obstructed runner?

I do not. I feel that the following runner is, in essence, also obstructed, and thus is protected from being put out. I would use 8-5.B.4 quoted above to support that position.
Eureka! I think I need to expand my definition of obstruction. Thanks for explaining it this way. Fortunately, I've never had it happen (yet) in a game.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1