- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
Try reading my post again, as this is about the hundredth one you haven't read correctly. If the fielder is blocking the base without the ball and the runner crashes into her, that is obstruction. How do you think it isn't obstruction when a fielder without the ball is blocking the plate and the time of contact? If you're just trying to nitpick something to show how smart you are, you have picked the wrong person to challenge, you are likely confusing others and you are wrong.
Confusing? I simply offered a clarification and, BTW, I'm not wrong.
I stand by my statement as accurate and not at all nitpicking. I don't need to nitpick and I not as vain as you, I really don't care what other people think about me.
I didn't say she was standing in front of the plate as the runner was rounding 3rd. Since you quoted it, I thought you would have at least read it. "If a fielder is blocking the base without the ball and the runner remains on her feet and crashes into the fielder, this is obstruction." As written, that is a true statement. Now stop being an obstructionist.
I read it just fine. Are you not constantly critical of others when what is posted doesn't meet your criteria of helping the OP? It is a fact that, by rule, the fielder blocking the base IS NOT what quantifies an OBSTRUCTION call even if there is a crash. Obstruction is the impediment or hindering of the runner and where on the field it occurred is completely irrelevant. Using the term "blocking the base" is what causes the consternation on the ball field when the umpire will NOT call obstruction because the catcher is blocking the plate 55' away when the runner is rounding 3rd base.