Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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"?
|
yeah, youre definately preaching to the converted. With some of the definitions, INT is already bad enough in certain instances that have been discussed here and ezteams.. without making it worse through vagueness. Youre definately right an "act", the batter taking a breath is an "act". Its just going to have to be explained over and over to an unreceptive listener (coaches).