Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
We are also talking about those umpires who try their best to learn the rule changes and how they are to be applied being unable to call it correctly without a firestorm because the of all the umpires who only know intent is no longer in the rule.
I am even less hopeful about this than I was (as if that was even possible) upon hearing that the national staff could not explain this without using the word "intent".
|
In fairness, mine did..
For example, when asked about the obvious example regarding this call.. R1@1b advancing and F4 throwing - beaning the runner.. he essentially said
Well did the runner interfeer with the play or did the fielder hit the runner with the ball? If the fielder hit this runner with the ball, and in your judgement, the runner did not interfere with the play, then its not INT. Its simply the fielder hitting the runner with the ball.
I will make my call this year based on direction provided to me by national staff (essentially no change in enforcement) and I will tell any pissed of coach that he can file a protest, but that is my ruling. In my written statement about what went down I will state something like: the rule change now made the rule ambiguous and upon a black and white reading of the rule, I in fact agree with the coach that it was INT and further clarification is required by ASA.
This is their mess, they can clean it up.
There will be enough protests and problems, especially from Umpires, this year that I am virtually certain ASA will revisit it next year, if not sooner.