|
Then let's discuss how an umpire is supposed to define intent.
I would think that the definition of the word intent that would apply here would be the third example of the definition of the word.
"Intent"-- Determined or resolved; having the mind or will fixed on some goal.
Take it one step further. In order to have intent one would also need to have pre-meditation.
"Pre-meditation"-- 2. Law Sufficient forethought to impute deliberation and intent to committ an act.
We can go one more.
"Deliberate"-- Studied and intentional ; characterized by deliberation; carefull and slow in deciding; unhurried.
This debate has not been about what defines intent has it?
The discussion has been over the proposed idea by a select few that intent is not required.
This play has a batter-runner simply discarding his bat toward the dugout like we see all the time. I don't understand how you can say over and over again that what we've read in the play can in anyway constitute intent.
I keep hearing that those of us in agreement here are trying to be mind readers when it's actually the other way around. Unless you see a pre-planned overt act to interfere you're the ones trying to play mind reader.
Being a judge of intent requires concrete proof that the act was intentional. You can't say you thought he might have intended to interfere, you have to be positive that he did intend to interfere.
Trying to rule intent without and overt act is poor judgment.
Tim.
|