Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp
I would like to see something in writing that says "the manner in which umpires ruled on most plays was not to change." I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw anything like that. Additionally, that would be inconsistent with "comment" to the rule changes, which reads, "Removes 'intentionally' from the rule and allows the umpire to judge interference and not intent." As so many on this forum point out, the language in the book is clear so how could we enforce the rule differently? Thoughts?
|
Which is exactly what they wanted. From March 2007 Rules Clarifications:
Tips for Judging Interference
In an effort to help umpires become more uniform in judging interference throughout the country, the ASA has addressed several rules relating to interference that contained the word “intentional”. Specifically, the word “intentional” has been removed from Rule 7, Section 7 Q; Rule 8, Section 2 F [3]; Rule 8, Section 7 J [3]; and, Rule 8, Section 7 P. Umpires now need only to base their decision on whether interference occurred or did not occur, and not the intentions of the offensive player. Moreover, removing the word “intentional” from these sections aligns these rules with the definition of INTERFERENCE in Rule 1.
All the "intent" part previous to this was differentiating whether the player committed an act of interference. However, there was the constant "I can't read his mind" excuse when umpires refused to make a decision. Now, instead of umpires saying, "well, the runner intentionally ran toward 2nd base and got hit with the throw, so it must be interference. Did it make umpire think a little more? Yeah, and I don't see a problem with it, I do the best I can to pass that along to other umpires. Just as every UIC should have passed this on to the umpires in their respective area.
When it comes down to it, seeing "intent" is the same as seeing an "act" of interference and all the rule did was attempt to standardize it so everyone is supposed to be looking at it in the same manner. It wasn't a manner of changing interference, just the manner in which it was presented in the rule book.
However, there was the argument that removing the wording "intent" part of the rule would cause to create more confusion and consternation among some umpires and that the change was not necessary. It was raised in at least four committee meetings. This discussion was so wide throughout the council meeting in Colorado Springs it even continued into the hotel parking lot during an evacuation because of a fire alarm. It wasn't that I didn't understand, I just didn't believe it was necessary and would be difficult to get across to some umpires.