I was somewhat reluctant to mention the website, since I didn't get the original poster's permission to reproduce his post, but since he hasn't responded to my question about why it wasn't obstruction . . . it was discussfastpitch.com, in the rules question forum.
What originally had me wondering was this:
Quote:
|
both of us believed there wasn't enough for OBS.
|
I was hoping he would tell me . . . there wasn't enough
what?
The situation kind of caught my eye because it's so wild, but then you give it three seconds of thought, and it's textbook obstruction. I was wondering if I had missed something, if there was
any justification for the no-call - but evidently not.
Tue Sep 13, 2011, 01:39pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
