Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Rule already protects the defender on such a play. A batted ball is a batted ball, on the ground or in the air.
Actually, it says "any" defender. Wouldn't that also include the defender which initially touched the batted ball? There is no exception for the player who misplayed the ball. While the "step and reach" makes sense to some level, do you think it is right to give the fielder carte blanche if the runner was trying to avoid interference?
Maybe the rule is right, it's just a matter of how we teach it. ATLSteve, what do you think?
|
Since my opinion was requested, here's my $.02.
Over the years, many ASA rule changes have resulted in the book being a bit fragmented, and difficult to follow. Those of us who have been around and actively followed and/or participated (Mike and I, as two) know what the rules mean, or are expected to mean; but, the simple truth is that the ASA Rule Book, including the Rules Supplements and Umpire Manual explanations, is now a very complicated document. It would be so much better if someone would undertake to rewrite the entire book, from scratch, editors who know what the rules are, what the rules mean, and have less personally invested than prior administrations.
The newest (2007) NFHS rules made the definition of an "initial play" on a batted ball much clearer than ASA current wording. I agree with Mike that the rules are there, and the same; just not as clear. And, so it is with other rules, substitution/BOO/unreported subs/illegal players, running lane interference (without referencing a good throw to a waiting receiver), the "shall hold the hands together for not less than one second" that is, by interpretation to be less than one second, the strike zone definition of armpits that can't be used, and so forth. So many rulings in the casebook don't appear to be fully supported by the wording of the rules. So many casebook rulings are clearly different than the initial intent of rules, but now exist because the wording of the rules fails to properly cover that situation. (Example, the discredited ruling that a flagrant crash is always also interference, and must include an out.) Conversely, I find the NCAA rulebook to be so wordy and redundant that it works better for administrators than umpires, coaches, or players.
So, this really isn't about new rules; it is about the quality, readability, and comprehension-capability of the rulebook. Mike and I get it; we attend National UIC Clinics, National Council meetings, Playing Rules Committee meetings, multiple rules clinics, anything to better understand so we teach the correct things. Mike sticks with ASA, only; in my area, I am on the training staffs of both ASA and GHSA (our high school). So, we have to get it; and we have to teach it.
But, the reality is that a huge number of umpires don't get it, don't attend the clinics, or hardly pay attention. Their daily tool is their rulebook; and it isn't as good a tool as it could (or should) be. The poor wording of some rules (and the clear absence of proper interpretations) is the front line to too many umpires. Add to that, the few coaches who actually read their rulebook also cannot get the actual rulings and interpretations from the rulebook. That isn't good; and, short of a complete editorial rewrite, I doubt it can be fixed. Beyond that, I seriously doubt that a compete editorial rewrite would be approved to be undertaken.
So, (in summary), I agree with Mike that the rules are there; I also agree with others who suggest the rules aren't clearly there.