Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wadeintothem
Now in the past, it may have been judged not to be INT- as there was not intent.
Now, as with my play, it is INT.
Its better that way because when there is INT, the offense is disadvantaged, even if not intentional.
|
Yeah, the offense is disadvantaged because according to this post, the player must cede any opportunity to advance and has a no-win situation short of going "poof" and disappearing before our eyes.
It was specifically stated in Colorado Springs and Oklahoma City that the change was to have the umpire judge when an offensive player interferes with the defense. Last time I checked, "interfere" was a verb. That means it represents action. Being where one is supposed to be and doing was is reasonably natural and part of the game is not an act of INT.
Just like in OBS, the offended team is merely afforded a reasonable resolution, not an automatic penalty. If you have umpires ruling INT every time the defense fails to execute the play around offensive players which have a legitimate reason for being where they are and doing what they are doing, it changes the characteristics of the game, and that was not the intent of the rule changes.