[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, there is nothing to prevent you from starting your own thread to debate things you think are "worthy", but my article was not about the rule per se. It presented as an assumed truth that the interference rule adjustment was wrong-headed. You may want to debate that assertion, but that is a different topic. Because ASA changed the batter's box and then had to do an emergency rule change after the player's revolted (or something) and since the ASA removed "intent" from most interference rules, apparently oblivious to the actual real-world softball being played outside of "Champtionship Play", then I suggested their rule change process was broken.

That is the title of the article, and the point it was making - the ASA rule change process is broken since it has produced these results in 2007.

If you want to debate the interference rule, feel free, but don't try to look at an article about something else and then say it doesn't present any positions about that. No sh-t, Sherlock.

Fair enough.. I did misunderstand the intent of the article as a whole. So as to the article, I change my argument to "objection, lack of foundation."