| Andy |
Mon May 02, 2011 10:16am |
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue
(Post 755109)
In a court of law, there are varying levels of burden of proof. In civil cases, it's "preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, the standard is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases? Do you have to know with absolute certainty they would have reached a base to award it? Do you have to be pretty sure? What if you feel they almost without a doubt would have made a base, however a perfect throw and a perfect relay might possibly have cut down a runner trying to advance had their been no obstruction?
I'm curious what burden of proof other umpires use when determining awards. For me, I'm giving any benefit of the doubt to the offense since the defense is in the wrong.
|
When I train on the subject of Obstruction, I provide a few guidelines to think about to help determine where the runner would have reached absent the obstruction:
1. How badly was s/he obstructed, ie, knocked down or just had to change direction?
2. How fast is the runner?
3. Does the fielder have a good arm?
4. How close are the fielders to the ball?
5. The benefit of the doubt goes to the runner, ie, if you are wavering between two bases, award the advanced base. |
