Call at First

[youngump]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

Citation: Rule 3.14159-common sense-"When a runner falls off 1B because she was going around F3, who obstructed her, don't call her out."

Do you really think she meant to advance in the OP? Because if I see this, I will judge she did not.

I agree with your common sense approach. I think it matches the intent of the obstruction rule. It does not match either the intent or the wording of the overrunning rule. If it happened with no obstruction, the safe call would be totally unwarranted.
________
Laurell

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by youngump

(snip) If it happened with no obstruction, the safe call would be totally unwarranted.

I may be wrong, but......
1) I think the whole point of the discussion was that the fall off the base was related to obstruction, wasn't it?

2) later

[Badamk]

She in no way was attempting to overrun first base. Her intentions were clearly to stop on the bag. She placed one foot on the base and fell off it.

I can see both ways. Obstruction could have been called but there was plenty of base to touch.

All the "you must be an idiot" type comments show your arrogance and unwarranted ego. Just give your opinion.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Badamk

She in no way was attempting to overrun first base. Her intentions were clearly to stop on the bag. She placed one foot on the base and fell off it.

I can see both ways. Obstruction could have been called but there was plenty of base to touch.

All the "you must be an idiot" type comments show your arrogance and unwarranted ego. Just give your opinion.

OK. In my opinion, you're an idiot.

[Badamk]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

OK. In my opinion, you're an idiot.

now that is funny.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Badamk

She in no way was attempting to overrun first base. Her intentions were clearly to stop on the bag. She placed one foot on the base and fell off it.

I can see both ways. Obstruction could have been called but there was plenty of base to touch.

All the "you must be an idiot" type comments show your arrogance and unwarranted ego. Just give your opinion.

"Plenty of base to touch" has no bearing on Obstruction. It is important that those of you offering opinions on rules take a few minutes and read the rules and definitions. Simply offering opinion that has absolutely no basis in rules is more akin to some idiot in the stand yelling "hands are part of the bat" than a discussion on an officiating forum.

The discussion of overrunning at least is admittedly a little ambigious as there is no case play or definition (that I could find) to use as a guide to define what exactly overrunning is --- obs is very clear so take a few moments and read up on it. Thanks.

[Badamk]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

"Plenty of base to touch" has no bearing on Obstruction. It is important that those of you offering opinions on rules take a few minutes and read the rules and definitions. Simply offering opinion that has absolutely no basis in rules is more akin to some idiot in the stand yelling "hands are part of the bat" than a discussion on an officiating forum.

The discussion of overrunning at least is admittedly a little ambigious as there is no case play or definition (that I could find) to use as a guide to define what exactly overrunning is --- obs is very clear so take a few moments and read up on it. Thanks.

I've read and reread everything I could find about obstruction and baserunning. There is nothing that clearly defines this call. Any other base she's out, no questions asked because I saw the play and don't feel she was obstructed (on that call I could be wrong but...). At first base the question comes in about the "overrunning".

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Badamk

I've read and reread everything I could find about obstruction and baserunning. There is nothing that clearly defines this call. Any other base she's out, no questions asked because I saw the play and don't feel she was obstructed (on that call I could be wrong but...). At first base the question comes in about the "overrunning".

I agree - nothing clearly spells out this call for use - hence the reason we have judgments based on rules.

Obstruction IS clearly defined, and nothing is mentioned about "plenty of base to touch".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Badamk

She in no way was attempting to overrun first base. Her intentions were clearly to stop on the bag. She placed one foot on the base and fell off it.

It doesn't make any difference what you think her intentions were. I'm assuming this was not Mary Lou Retton attempting a forward double with a 1 1/2 twist trying to nail the landing.

At not time is a BR is required to stop and remain on 1B. Really don't care what the deal is at 2nd & 3rd as that is irrelevant to a BR at 1st.

"Overrunning" is a generic term undefined by ASA or any other rule set of which I am aware. There are no requirements stating the BR MUST be on his/her feet before, after or while contacting 1B.

I can see both ways. Obstruction could have been called but there was plenty of base to touch.

Say what?

All the "you must be an idiot" type comments show your arrogance and unwarranted ego. Just give your opinion.

You received opinions (which are like...) and interpretations, but a few don't want to hear them because they don't agree. There are a lot of real ridiculous rules, but my opinion of them has no bearing on how I rule on the field.