Could we have done this different?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This bold is where I have a problem and it isn't with you in particular. The lead runner belongs to the PU.

IMO, trailing the runner should be secondary and the PU only as a second pair of eyes when available. Yes, it is part of the PU's mechanics, but so is the lead runner. I'm not saying the PU should not trail or watch, but s/he needs to pay attention to the lead runner.

In this circumstance, what would hurt the offense more, the BR being called out with a pulled foot or the runner advancing to 3B being called out when she shouldn't be?

I don't disagree. In fact intuitively that is what I would think.
Possibly I misinterpreted what I have been taught, but when I have commented at clinics or evaluations (formal or informal), I got the message that FIRST was the BR responsibilities - THEN was R1 to third.
Some of this was in response to the critique of "giving up on the BR too soon (to get to third)" The teaching was stay with the BR (cheating to the center) till that play is done THEN bust for the angle at third.
This is the first time the obstruction situation has come up.

Lesson learned (I hope).



edited to add: After mulling it over a little more - I can still think of "No win" situations here... you just can't see two things at once.

Maybe I'm not good enough for two umpire mechanics and should only work 3!! ;-)