View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:47pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp View Post
The test question is poorly written. With that said, the ONLY interference that doesn't result in an immediate dead ball is when the plate umpire interferes with the catcher's attempt to retire a runner after a pitched ball. For those of you who keep referring to the need for interference to be "intentional" you may want to consult the rule book. It has been at least four years since ASA removed the word "intentional" from almost all forms of inference.
Yes, they removed the word, but not the meaning. The NUS was quick to point out that the manner in which umpires ruled on most plays was not to change.

Personally, I understood the question when I first read it a couple weeks ago, probably because of what I expect from ASA tests. It isn't saying "IF" it was interference, but that it IS interference and the ball is dead. The point of the question is to show that runner assistance is not interference and the ball is not dead.

This rule was once considered and noted as interference (last century), but was changed as it doesn't meet the definition or interpretation of interference.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote