Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking of a straw man argument???
This clarification refers to a runner which gave up on the play and ACTED in a manner other than that natural to the game.
|
Actually, a retiring runner turning to go to the dugout is an entirely natural to the game.
The clarification, IMO, represents the view that if a runner does something such as commit an error in judgment, that too is INT. It doesnt require that they do so with the intent to interfere. The runner in #2 obviously did not intend to interfere, the runner just chose the wrong place to be. The change holds them more accountable for their actions.
Same with the scenario where last year, mccrowder was solely focussed on the umpire judging the runners intent - this year that is not required. The runner who was tagged out is then accountable not to interfere with the play.
Your points on the other examples are well taken, the only issue I'm pointing out is there is a change in the presentation of enforcement. This is shored up by Clarification #2 referencing Rule 8, Section 7 J [3] which no longer requires intent.