Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 628919)

We talked about it for several between innings. I am aware that on this play NCAA issues a warning and I brought that up to him. I asked him (he is NCAA) if his aversion to what to me was an obvious call was that if it were NCAA there would be a warning and he kinda waffled about that.. "well yeah, i would have to write do the name and this and that..."

To me it was an obvious call and I made it and I told my partner, yes, I was essentially giving them a free shot home (he felt then the call was punitive and I agreed there was a punitive aspect to the free shot home.. but thats the way it is)

What I was chewing on with this line of thought was if "impeding" had a deeper aspect.. or is it.. contact as described=obs (how I've always called it) with the free shot.

Apparantly there would be no deeper aspect to impedence. :D

Originally Posted by greymule (Post 629062)

Apparently, you are just naturally resistive to my attempt to impede the discussion.

Let's stick to the current issue. And don't give me any static.

Originally Posted by greymule (Post 629062)

Apparently, you are just naturally resistive to my attempt to impede the discussion.

Let's stick to the current issue. And don't give me any static.

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 629014)

Here's the way I would answer your partner's view: the runner was obviously impeded, and it doesn't matter if the runners was impeded in the runner's intent to advance one more step or 60'; the runner was impeded. We don't require the runner to be making an attempt to advance to the next base, only that the runner be legally running the bases.