View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 24, 2006, 07:49am
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
..

That makes sense and thats how I would call it. A runner should not be penalized for running the bases in a normal fashion. It dawned on me after I wrote my first point that ASA was just removing the need to judge the act as intentional. The actions that would constitute interference are probably still the same, now we just don't have to determine if it was accidental or intentional. The runner would still have to do something beyond normal action that would interfere with the defenses ability to make an out. I also noticed that ASA put in a definition for making a play. I like the added definition.
So, what's the difference? Even with the word "intentional/intentionally" included in the rule, there are umpires ruling that a runner's failure to act was in itself interference. How do you think umpires like that are going to rule now? Remember, there are 35K ASA umpires and any additional guidance available, IMO, is better than a simple black and white statement in the book which makes the rule vague, at best.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote