HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Not problematic at all. It's all about Onus. The Onus was on the Fielder not to Obstruct.
Sure, Salty put him in a crappy situation - but he could have laid completely flat on the ground after missing the Fielding Play. Or rolled away. But he didn't - he lifted his legs (either intentionally or inadvertently - doesn't matter). The Onus is on the Fielder not to Obstruct.
The same Onus applies to a Runner who Interferes with a Fielder making a Play. The Onus is on the Runner not to Interfere. Doesn't matter how it happens.
As for the 'Very Likely' comment, that refers to whether the Runner would have made it to the next Base safely. Had the Fielder been immediately behind 3rd Base and caught the ball, it would have been obvious that the Runner could not have Scored unimpeded. Hence, no Obstruction Call.
As for teleportation, MLB has fought Drug Testing & Instant Replay for decades. One can expect MLB to fight teleportation for even longer.
MLB Rule 7.06(a) - Obstruction is rather clear and concise. No need for teleporting - just don't Obstruct. Oct 27, 07:09
Not problematic at all. It's all about Onus. The Onus was on the Fielder not to Obstruct. Oct 27, 08:43
And if Salty had made a better throw (or not thrown at all) they wouldn't have been in a position to obstruct {nm} Oct 27, 17:14
Thx for the detailed analysis, Paul2k. A ROTO Tip O' The Hat to Umpires Jim Joyce & Dana DeMuth. Oct 27, 20:53
I don't think it was... Oct 27, 12:39