Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
That's my entire point. Agreed that the use of the word "interferes" is poorly chosen. Accepted; taken alone, it is inappropriate, since it cannot be "Interference".
Disagree that we can't get past that, or that anything else is contradictory. Take your book, replace the words "interferes with" in that one location with "hinders"; then tell me where or why there is any other contradiction, or why you insist on invoking Rule 10.
That's all I've been saying all along; yes, that one word in that definition has not been wordsmithed since the Interference revisions. If we accept that, then I see no other contradictions, need for ASA official interpretations, or general confusion; the answers are already in the book.
|
Well, if you remove the contradiction, then there is no contradiction, is there?
But, even a casual reading of this thread, plus the one from 2 years ago, would seem to argue against your view that this is obvious.
The Rule 10 safety valve is because to get to a correct call here requires bypassing at least 2 "cast in concrete" concepts in the rule book, namely that interference requires a play, and interference requires someone to be called out. Not to mention, of course, that a batter is not even mentioned in any of the rules being applied here. Sure, I would explain it was simply a foul ball and hope to get away with only a brief discussion with the DC, but there is that inconvenient use of the word "interferes" that might be brought up.