- May 29, 2015
- 3,815
- 113
@eddieq for the win.
I believe the case play (and a similar one mentioned earlier) indicates that “they” want the out called for passing to kill the play (since obstruction is a delayed dead ball) and then negated by an obstruction award. In that case, the appeal would be the mythical “advantageous fourth out.”
As it seems most of us here were applying our judgment, we were not calling the passing out and calling the appeal the third out (which is in line with @Mike Hurd ’s observation).
Same result either way … no runs … but it is a great exercise on how to apply rules, as @eddieq pointed out! This is one of my HUGE issues with case plays, they should teach us how to use the rule book by providing explanations. Instead, too many orgs and umps use them to create new rules in some pseudo-secondary “here’s what we’re really going to do” book.
I believe the case play (and a similar one mentioned earlier) indicates that “they” want the out called for passing to kill the play (since obstruction is a delayed dead ball) and then negated by an obstruction award. In that case, the appeal would be the mythical “advantageous fourth out.”
As it seems most of us here were applying our judgment, we were not calling the passing out and calling the appeal the third out (which is in line with @Mike Hurd ’s observation).
Same result either way … no runs … but it is a great exercise on how to apply rules, as @eddieq pointed out! This is one of my HUGE issues with case plays, they should teach us how to use the rule book by providing explanations. Instead, too many orgs and umps use them to create new rules in some pseudo-secondary “here’s what we’re really going to do” book.