View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 16, 2011, 01:03pm
AtlUmpSteve AtlUmpSteve is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
It strikes me that too many here are relying on EXACTLY what ASA attempted to take OUT of the decision process regarding interference. It does not appear anywhere in the rule that we need to consider even one little bit what a coach's intentions are. If 1) there is a possible play that can be interfered with, and if 2) the coach (or anyone else who is not a runner) physically assists a runner, either intentionally or unintentionally, the runner should be ruled out, according to the rule.

That said, I agree it is easier to ignore minor contact as incidental if you believe it is inadvertent; and I agree it is easier to consider a potential play has been available if the coach appears to intentionally contact. But, that is secondary thought process, not the basic rule. Let's not focus on secondary thoughts over the primary decision. Stay with the rule, AND the intent of the rule; you cannot disregard the rule itself.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote