Catcher's obstruction

[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.