Attempted to apply what I think I've learned here in a scenario today:
Runners on second and third, batter hits a gapper that goes to the right-center field fence. On-base runners score. Fielders execute a double-relay to the catcher in plenty of time to tag out the batter-runner who attempted to get home.
Field umpire announces that obstruction occurred at third base, nullifies the out and returns the runner to third base.
I was watching the fielders and did not see the obstruction so I asked the umpire where the obstruction occurred. He indicated the third baseman was in the base path and pointed to a spot about ten feet up the baseline between 2nd and 3rd.
I suggested that:
1) The runner was then protected by rule to 3rd base.
2) That he (the umpire) had expressed his opinion the the batter-runner was only protected to 3rd base by placing her back there (as opposed to awarding the runner home); and
3) That the batter-runner put themself at risk by attempting to advance another base and that the out should stand.
I further suggested that his only options were 1) to judge that the batter-runner would have made it home and to award her home, or 2) let the out stand. He disagreed and left her on 3rd.
Is my understanding correct? I can't think of any ruling that would have the runner be put back at third?
Runners on second and third, batter hits a gapper that goes to the right-center field fence. On-base runners score. Fielders execute a double-relay to the catcher in plenty of time to tag out the batter-runner who attempted to get home.
Field umpire announces that obstruction occurred at third base, nullifies the out and returns the runner to third base.
I was watching the fielders and did not see the obstruction so I asked the umpire where the obstruction occurred. He indicated the third baseman was in the base path and pointed to a spot about ten feet up the baseline between 2nd and 3rd.
I suggested that:
1) The runner was then protected by rule to 3rd base.
2) That he (the umpire) had expressed his opinion the the batter-runner was only protected to 3rd base by placing her back there (as opposed to awarding the runner home); and
3) That the batter-runner put themself at risk by attempting to advance another base and that the out should stand.
I further suggested that his only options were 1) to judge that the batter-runner would have made it home and to award her home, or 2) let the out stand. He disagreed and left her on 3rd.
Is my understanding correct? I can't think of any ruling that would have the runner be put back at third?