Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
there is NO QUESTION IMO, barring new POE, that a batter dropping a bat as described is "an act" that is INT.
You may not call it or want to call it or consider it over officiating, but if ASA doesnt want something like that called, why change it to an "act"?? .. they HAVE to mean .. an act.. i.e. doing something.
Dropping a bat is doing something.
I think this scenario is the definition of what ASA wants called with the upcoming change. It could be a POE in and of itself of the type of INT ASA is directing us to call..
|
I don't think that is correct. There hasn't been on person from the NUS that has stated that we should call anything different than before the rule change. This change was clearly meant as part of an effort to clean up the grammar. All of the changes were noted with the reason that since the word "intentional" was not part of the definition, it shouldn't be in the rule. My argument was that using the words "intentional" and "intentionally" in the rule should be considered as guidance to the players, coaches and umpires.
Until the UIC Clinic, I'm not anticipating any changes in the application of the rules.