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.
|
There was no change in the application of the obstruction rule, either; just a change in the conditions under which it went into effect (had to possess the ball). Yet, the ASA "clarification" in the POE led many coaches (and some umpires, too) to believe that merely blocking the base was obstruction - didn't matter that the runner was 40 feet away or that the runner made to discernable change to her advance.
Removing the words "intent" and "intentional" - no matter how it is spun in the clinics - will be read as "intent is no longer necessary, Blue, you gotta call that... that runner got in the way of the throw..." yadda, yadda.
If somebody was all in a tither over the word "intentional" not being in the definition, that was more easily fixed by ending the definition this way...
"Contact is not necessary, but intent sometimes is."
There. Fixed. A definition is so the word can be understood when used in a rule. For example, "interference" must be with a play; in general getting in the way of a defensive player who is not making a play is not interference. It is not meant to cover all conditions under which the word may pop up in a rule. That is why there are separate rules.
See my litany of descriptive words about this change in the other thread.