Catcher's obstruction

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Nah, not being sneaky. Yes, catcher was in foul territory, so it was not a trick question.

Someone asked me the question, I answered with the call I said above. The only thing I left out was the ball dribbled back out into fair territory & runners were advancing (one would have probably scored). The umpire did kill the ball, sent the runners back, placed the batter on 1B, but then had second thoughts since killing the ball deprived the team of a run.

I told him I'd post it here.

how can you assume the runners would have score on the batted ball if no catchers obs? there are a ton of possible batted ball outcomes that would not only not score the runners, but may lead to a double play.

its wrong to assume the batted ball would have done thing had the catcher not had her glove in the way

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by jr131981

how can you assume the runners would have score on the batted ball if no catchers obs?...its wrong to assume the batted ball would have done thing had the catcher not had her glove in the way

Rather than a blanket assumption, this seems to have been an honest accessment made by the umpire who was actually on the field and was watching the play. Regardless...assumptions or speculation aside, it doesn't really matter because it has nothing to do with enforcing the rule correctly.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Rather than a blanket assumption, this seems to have been an honest accessment made by the umpire who was actually on the field and was watching the play. Regardless...assumptions or speculation aside, it doesn't really matter because it has nothing to do with enforcing the rule correctly.

my point was, had the catcher not obstructed, why would one assume the batter would hit the ball in the same manner. i would venture to say 9/10 the ball would be batted in a completely different fashion, thus you cannot assume anything regarding the runners bc 9/10 times you have no idea what the ball is going to do.

it wasnt a shot at the umpire, just pointing out what came across to me as a false assumption.