fosterspoint wrote:Thanks for the responses. The rule makes sense.
I am just trying to figure out the logic behind the other team. F3 would not gain an advantage by blocking the runner from going back to 1st base, because it would be obstruction or interference unless she has the ball. If she has the ball in time, then the runner was probably too far off from the base, and F3 would have easily gotten the runner out, even if F3 was playing on the base.
Maybe they count on runners being too timid, so the runners hesitate a second longer. Maybe they count on Blue not making the obstruction or interference call.
Anyway, as a coach, I need to know what to teach the girls in this situation because we will likely play this team again. We will tell our girls to go straight back to the base on a pickoff attempt. If the defensive player is in the way, they still need to go straight to the base, even if it means making contact with the defense. I don't like teaching the girls to make contact with the defense, but in this case, the other team is forcing the issue. Does this sound right?
DING! DING! DING! we have a winner. Coaches absolutely coach this expecting a tenative return of the baserunner and the no call by the umpire. IF ( and it's a big if ) the umpire actually calls interference the probable result is that the award will be 1B anyway unless they try for 2B and make it without being tagged.
I tell my girls that if it's blatant, there job is to come hard back to the bag and then listen to the 1b coach or try to see for themselves if umpire has his arm out and then go for 2B. Thing is that even if in bumping into F3 you make her miss the throw from F2, F9 is probably able to throw you out at 2B anyway but you should at least try it's a free try.
I don't agree with coaching F3 to do this because you set up collisions between a baserunner wearing a helmet and an F3 without one who is looking the other way and can't protect herself, but I've seen plenty of teams that do it and I can't argue that it isn't effective.