|
Pete Booth writes: "So if I read the quotes from Evans properly Using OBR - "boils down" to Umpire Judgement not
necesarily BR out for interference. Evans uses the term may be adjudged to be interference which the way I interpret means - Umpire Judgement." He then goes on to say you should consider the INTENT (his emphasis) of the interference.
Two questions:
1) If the umpire MAY adjuge an unintentional act by the batter as interference, and if this isn't the time to apply such a judgment, when should it be applied?
2) The interpretations we've been looking at assume that there was no intent to interfere. But your statement implies that unless there WAS intent, you would judge there was no interference. Is that what you meant?
|