Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
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.
|
Are those in favor of the language change arguing for such to give the umpire more leeway and to give coaches less grounds for protest? I've never considered "intentional" vague.. and they are obviously moving towards a more vague language for a reason. Those that argued for it had an argument, and Im wondering what that was.
My overall feeling is that they are creating a bigger problem with the confusion that will result with this language change (it is going to be READ by most as a rule change IMO) - than they are solving.