Obstruction? or out?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

It was bothersome to me to think, because the rule states, that we have to "award" her third - when in reality, she merely would have been out by 40 feet instead of 43 feet.

I used to be bothered by this too. . .until I changed my attitude. Rather than thinking of this as an award, think of it as a punishment. Send the runner to 3B as punishment for the defense doing something they weren't supposed to do.

I think you hit it on the head when you said that we have to determine what base she would have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred.

I would, under these circumstances, more than likely call out and state that the obstruction was irrelevant to her making third safely.

Once you admit that there was obstruction, you're inviting a protest if you still call the runner out. Rather than say the obstruction was irrelevant, I think it would be better to say that you saw no obstruction.