![]() |
|
|||
Some of you are aware that there is a thread on the NFHS board where several members are suggesting they would signal obstruction to send a message when the runner is not observed to be hindered, but a fielder might be partially blocking a base. The arguments suggested are that the act "probably" affected the runner somehow, and that even a clean and unaffected slide "may" have been created by the position of the fielder. I'm not supporting nor suggesting that interpretation.
But, to greymule's play, I would have (at least) an extended interpretation of "where the obstruction occurred". If a runner is obstructed at, or just before a base, I consider them obstructed on both sides of that base, so long as it isn't completely apparent that they fully regained their momentum and chosen path prior to reaching the base. If being impeded or hindered is part of the definition, then they are, in my judgment, still obstructed until the impedence or hindrence is over. Maybe not a literal rule interpretation (and I haven't asked for one, for fear of hearing the response I don't want to hear!!), but that is how I would address the greymule play. Well, that and the part about giving the runner the benefit of the doubt. Greymule said Quote:
JMO.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obstruction Question | BigUmp56 | Baseball | 8 | Sun Apr 16, 2006 04:20pm |
Another Obstruction question. | gdc25 | Softball | 6 | Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:39am |
Question on obstruction | dsimp8 | Softball | 37 | Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:35am |
Yet Another Obstruction Question | Striker991 | Baseball | 2 | Mon May 05, 2003 02:47pm |
Obstruction question | David Emerling | Baseball | 21 | Fri Dec 07, 2001 05:40pm |