Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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.
|
If I didn't know better, you almost sound like you think rule changes and POE are supposed to make the rules clearer, rather than more confusing. One might even think you believe the rules could be consistent between sanctions.
Of course, we know you understand that the word intentional in the rule established when the interference in the definition was to be penalized, rather than ignored.
