Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove. That means that I probably would call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow. ... Look at the J/R and tell me how you KNOW that he did or didn't have intent.
|
Mistake 1 - "Interference doesn't have to be intentional because it is nearly impossible to prove." WHAT?!?!! That's an interesting position, considering that the rulemakers chose to say that in certain situations, including this one, it is not interference unless there is INTENT to interfere.
Mistake 2 - "I ... call the interference because his action caused the disruption of game flow." WHAT?!?!?! Dang, but I can't find the section in the book that says the disruption of game flow is interference.
Mistake 3 - "Tell me how you KNOW he did or didn't have intent." It would not only require intent, but an AMAZING amount of accuracy and timing for him to throw his bat in such a manner as to hit a throw that has yet to be made ON PURPOSE (which is part of intent). I would suspect that 99% of us could tell from the way this bat was thrown whether there was intent to disrupt a potential play. It doesn't require a call to Dionne Warwick - just common sense.
As suspected, however, you have twice responded to the Rule-Based opinion that this is not interference with opinion and insult. Even when I posted that I suspected you would do so without referencing an actual rule... you did exactly what I said you'd do.
I normally try not to get into pissing contests with you, as they often degenerate into insults. But on this one, I felt compelled to jump in, as your mistaken comments seem very likely to mislead our newer umpires, and even some with a medium level of experience.