[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

... I see what snorman is saying, just reading the rule it appears that if they cause INT they are out....

In fact, I predicted his exact argument in a commentary I wrote about the removal of "intent" at the time the change was made. Here it is, again,...

The "legalization" of dodge ball rules.

The change to remove intent from most of the interference rules that previously required intent is almost breathtaking at first reading. Now, for example, if a runner is hit with a thrown ball, intent on the part of the runner is no longer required for there to be an interference ruling. Supposedly, this was done to make the playing rules more consistent with the definition of “interference” in Rule 1. Well, did anyone stop to consider revising the definition instead? Here, I offer this free of charge. Add this to the end of the last sentence of the Rule 1 – INTERFERENCE: “, but intent sometimes is.” So the rule would now read,

INTERFERENCE: The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary, but intent sometimes is.

I have read the views of the NUS that this is not really a change, and that all that was intended (use of that word is ironic, don’t you think?) was to not require the umpire to think he had to get inside the player’s head. Phooey. Somebody just got a bug up their butt about the lack of “intent” in the definition.

Now, instead, what we will have is a season of poor calls by umpires who now believe that ASA has become the ADA (Amateur Dodgeball Association) calling runners out because of some imagined interference. Not to mention all the “discussions” with coaches who will now want to argue with an umpire who makes the proper call that “Ya gotta call that, Blue, intent is not required.” So, this is an improvement?