View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 26, 2006, 04:41pm
Dakota Dakota is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo
1. It is not a rule change, just a clarification of wording for INT regarding non-batted balls.
2. INT by definition is an act which implies intent. Therefore, there is no such thing as non-intentional interference.
3. The call is INT. The no-call is incidental contact.
4. There are no changes in the way INT will be called in 2007.
If this is a true / false quiz, only the NUS can address 1, 3, and 4 as they try to make understandable sense of the nonsense. However, 2 is clearly false, which incidentally was the supposed reason behind this change.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote