Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
As I reread it...
This could mean no practical difference in application, aside from the ASA causing us trouble w/ trying to explain it to the coaches...
|
You're probably right, but the real-world applicacion will be a massive FUBAR - similar to when they directly declared that blocking a base without the ball was obstruction; two years laters I'm still having to discuss that one with coaches, still hearing of umpires calling it as the POE is written.
They have taken a word with a specific meaning - the interference was intentional - and substituted a vauge word - the "act was committed"??? Of course it was committed - the bat was dropped, the runner ran, the batter moved in the box, etc., etc.
So, which of those "committed acts" results in a better rule without "intent"?