Obstruction Oddity

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

How does considering the retouch square with the requirement to decide the award at the time of the obstruction?

I don't see a conflict. Just new circumstances which must change the result.

At the time of the obstruction, you have two protections; between two bases, and base award to negate affect of the obstruction. You are thinking 1) between third and home, and 2) assumably home. BUT, when the ball is caught, you must consider that the ruling changes!!

First, you add the exception; the obstruction, in all liklihood, actually ASSISTED the runner to return on the live ball appeal. So, the appeal, by rule, is an exception. And, realistically, how could you NOT reevaluate what would negate the result of the obstruction?? The running requirements are now substantially different. Instead of simply completing the run home, the runner must retrace to 2nd. The rules, as well as the circumstances, must be cause to reevaluate the award.

Consider this. Just suppose the ball was caught an instant prior to the obstruction. Wouldn't you have to consider that the runner needs to return prior to any advance in determining the award? Then, why wouldn't you in this case (an instant after, presumably)? The situation changed; this isn't a "subsequent" play, really, it is the completion of THIS play.

But, the protection between two bases doesn't disappear, either. The runner needs only to make it safely back to being between THOSE two bases without having violated any other baserunning rule to retain that protection.

I have the same rulings and rationale as Mike in these cases.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I don't see a conflict. Just new circumstances which must change the result.

At the time of the obstruction, you have two protections; between two bases, and base award to negate affect of the obstruction. You are thinking 1) between third and home, and 2) assumably home. BUT, when the ball is caught, you must consider that the ruling changes!!

First, you add the exception; the obstruction, in all liklihood, actually ASSISTED the runner to return on the live ball appeal. So, the appeal, by rule, is an exception. And, realistically, how could you NOT reevaluate what would negate the result of the obstruction?? The running requirements are now substantially different. Instead of simply completing the run home, the runner must retrace to 2nd. The rules, as well as the circumstances, must be cause to reevaluate the award.

Consider this. Just suppose the ball was caught an instant prior to the obstruction. Wouldn't you have to consider that the runner needs to return prior to any advance in determining the award? Then, why wouldn't you in this case (an instant after, presumably)? The situation changed; this isn't a "subsequent" play, really, it is the completion of THIS play.

But, the protection between two bases doesn't disappear, either. The runner needs only to make it safely back to being between THOSE two bases without having violated any other base-running rule to retain that protection.

I have the same rulings and rationale as Mike in these cases.

Fair enough. I wish this particular part of the rule were a little clearer.

However, couldn't following this approach result in the weird situation where a runner is protected between third and home but not between second and third?
If you determine that the base she'd reach is second based on obstruction between third and home then she can be called out after retouching between second and third. After retouching the runner decides to break for third. In a close play she slides in just ahead of the tag. Then she overslides the bag and is called out between the obstructed bases and sent back to second?