maven

Dude, you ruined my spoiler!

I agree, and the OBR provision can make enforcement tricky. Another play: No runners, outs don't matter. Batter hits a double, misses 1B, rounds 2B, throw goes OOP as BR is between 2B and 3B (returning to 2B). OBR ruling? The FED ruling is easier on this play, because, having already touched 2B, the runner may no longer legally return to correct his error. The base award is from 2B, and the runner will be out on appeal of the miss at 1B.

I'm not sure I understand your point. In the OP, in my opinion, there was NOT OBS, because F2 had possession of the ball, and none was called. The runner dove over the fielder, which is not allowed by FED rule. My question for you is: Why do you think FED has diving over a fielder as illegal, and an out ? You don't believe that rule is in place for the safety of the participants ? My point was to address the suggestion made (and assumed) in posts 8 and 9 that in the OP we have a "conflict" between an OBS award and a diving infraction. Forget the OP. Suppose a case of genuine OBS and genuine diving over the obstructing fielder. There is no conflict, because a base award is not a guarantee to acquire the awarded base, but rather the right to advance legally without liability to be put out by the defense. If a runner chooses NOT to advance legally (diving, MC, missing a base, etc.), he may be called out by the umpire. No conflict. Of course, the diving rule is a safety rule, but that's quite irrelevant to my point. I was illuminating the (often misunderstood) meaning of a base award.

That way you don't have to wait, and others can just click on it and see what you have without exposing the answer to everyone. In the OP unless F6 snuck in behind the bag for some reason I can't see the INT since it's already passed F5.

Coach speak: "That can't be legal!" = "I've never seen that before!"

Back to the OP: The issue is not one of safety OR baseball (or whatever). The award for OBS gives the runner the right to advance without being put out, but he must continue to run the bases legally. He may not interfere, contact maliciously, miss a base, or (as in this case) dive over a fielder as he completes his award. If he does ANY of those, the award is nullified.

The hybrid stance is illegal by rule, and my state wants the rule enforced. So, here's what I do: 1. If I see F1 warming up with a hybrid stance, I'll address it then with F1 and his coach. 2. If he does it with no runners on, I'll warn once. 3. After that, it's an illegal pitch/balk depending on whether runners are on base.

That's incorrect. The balk is enforced in your case, but since the runner advanced there is no further penalty. No rule supports differential enforcement. NCAA 9-3 Pen 3 AR 1 and or 3 (one of those is what I quoted before). OBR: PBUC 6.7-8 Both contain nearly the identical language above. Other than that, though, you are correct that "no rule supports differential enforcement." That's not differential enforcement. The balk is enforced in those cases, but since the runners reached their advance base there is no further penalty. Indeed, part of enforcing the balk is returning the batter with the same count. That is not in any sense "ignoring" the balk. Though 'acknowledge' appears in the NCAA AR, that's not a defined term. Penalties are either enforced or ignored.

That's incorrect. The balk is enforced in your case, but since the runner advanced there is no further penalty. No rule supports differential enforcement.

Sounds as if you need to call more strikes. No way this is INT. Why do I care where the batter goes during play? As long as he doesn't delay the game, he can go get a drink for all I care. Onus is on the defense to know who may legally advance. I wouldn't call it differently with young'uns. Teachable moment when the defense screws up.

Sounds like a correct application of 7.07 to me.