![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
Is obstruction and the resulting hindrence so momentary in your mind that it happens at one absolute spot, that the hindrence didn't actually continue until the BR regained balance and full speed running? For me, the obstruction started when the runner was first hindered, and continues until the runner is no longer hindered. Anything else makes no sense, and rewards the defense for intentional acts.
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
|
|||
Quote:
But where the rule states that a runner may not be put out between the bases where the obstruction took place, and the obstruction took place before the runner reached a base, where does it say that the hindrance may continue until such time as the runner regains full speed running? Take this routine play: BR has to slow down on her approach to first on a base hit in the outfield because F3 is standing short of the bag. Likely, the BR won't regain her full speed until after the base, and she tries to stretch the hit into a double when she sees F8 bobble the ball. But F8 has a gun and throws her out by some 15-20 feet. Are we really to send the BR back to first base? Again, I simply stated that I've never heard anyone say that it's acceptable to extend a runner's protection from between two previous bases to between two subsequent bases. If that's the case, then we'll have to keep our eyes on the runner to gauge when she regains her full speed.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Manny, I think you're missing the boat here quite drastically.
If the fielder is near a base when she obstructs a runner, it is COMPLETELY common for that obstruction to have affected that runner both before and after the base. If you do not rule this way, you're really creating a situation where it's advantageous for a fielder to simply get in the way most of the time. If you're ruling this way, and your my umpire, I'm stationing my first baseman directly in front of the bag on all hits that are in between single/double ... pretty much ensuring they just get a single. Or worse, my third baseman is going to stand in front of third and push the runner toward home such that they miss third base on any borderline scoring play. You'll only protect them to third unless you're sure they would score, so I'm gaining by obstructing. Yes, we protect them (and award) those bases that we feel they would have achieved had there been no obstruction ... but the other half of that is just as important. If a fielder obstructs near first - and that obstruction affects the runner AFTER first, they are protected between first and second as well, even if the umpire doesn't think they'd have gotten to 2nd.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Seem to recall a recent thread where F5 obstructs R1 as she rounds 3B so completely that she misses the bag on her way home. Running with a full head of steam, she has to lock up her brakes 1/3 of the way down the line & come back to 3B (hoping, I guess, that BU's OBS call would protect her to home).
If she chose, instead, to continue home nonstop (without coming back to touch) would the OBS call forgive the missed base? I think she'd be liable to be called out on appeal, regardless of the OBS, but I forget how the thread played out. |
|
|||
Rules are pretty clear that all bases must be touched in legal order, including awarded bases. I see nothing in the rules that would indicate a missed base can be considered to have been touched if obstruction were the reason it was missed.
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intent to swing | njdevs00cup | Baseball | 25 | Sun May 13, 2007 01:06am |
looking for the intent of the rule.... | phillips.alex | Baseball | 7 | Thu Apr 06, 2006 05:28pm |
The INTENT of the rules | MJT | Football | 12 | Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:15am |
Intent to hurt | jking_94577 | Basketball | 23 | Tue Mar 04, 2003 02:53pm |
Intent of the Rule | PeteBooth | Baseball | 14 | Wed Jan 10, 2001 12:31pm |