Fri May 13, 2005, 02:11pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
The NCAA rule survey, plus various and sundry postings on the various umpire boards leads me to this statement:
If you (meaning the rules committees, umpire directors, state rules interpreters, clinicians, etc.) don't understand the bleepin' rule and its application, then don't you think it might not be such a good idea to roll out the change in the rule so soon????
It is extremely frustrating to see statements like (from the bleepin' NCAA, no less)
Quote:
Rule 9, Section 17 Obstruction (page 105)
Do you favor reimplementing the former interpretation on obstruction?
Rationale: Obstruction is currently being called on defensive players when the runner is 30 and 40 feet from the base.
|
The old rule ain't the solution to incompetent umpire trainers, POE writers, and clinic slide developers, fer cryin' out loud!
Whew! It sure felt better to get that out!
|
And this has what to do with ISF?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|