|
It has already been stated. Some doofus (my word without knowing who this was) was all hot and bothered that the definition did not contain the word "intent" or "intentional" and was bound and determined to make the playing rules themselves "consistent" with this. There was some thought that umpires were not making the interference call because they could not "prove" intent. They never had to prove intent; they only had to judge it based on the actions of the offense. It was all hooey that has done nothing whatsoever productive toward any improvement in enforcement and has caused umpires to conclude there is now a change to the rules that must be reflected in changed enforcement.
I mean fer cryin' out loud, of all things to be concerned about in the use of the English language consistently in the ASA rule book, why they chose THIS one is beyond me.
So now umpires are going overboard and considering a cross-eyed look as interference since it startled the poor defender. OK, clearly hype there, but definitive action to interfere is not the same thing as any slight movement that somehow got in the way maybe.
__________________
Tom
|