Quote:
Originally Posted by rwest
It is not a crutch. Without this philosophy you have an out when R1 running to second is hit with the ball thrown by F4. Intent is no longer required.
|
Nonsense.
Quote:
|
The reason we don't call interference is because the runner is doing what is required of her. Running the bases legally. In my example, the batter is doing what is required. Moving out of the way. She has to intentionally interfere with a thrown ball out of the batters box. There's no way around it. Intent is required. If I believe the batter intentionally positioned herself in the throwing lane I will call the out. I don't have a problem with getting an out when supported by the rule book. It's not in this case if you do not judge it to be intentional. If you don't want intent have ASA remove it.
|
It's not a matter of want ... it's a matter of understanding the intent of these admittedly poorly written rules. If you think this rule needs rewriting, you are correct and I don't think you'd get an argument from anyone here. However, if you are not ruling INT on the play you described, then you are not ruling as ASA has told us they want. Bring this up at a clinic if you like, as I know of no reason you should take me at my word ... but your ruling is incorrect.
Further - I posit that any umpire who bases a ruling on "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing" has a decent chance of that ruling being wrong - and even if right, right for the wrong reason. There ARE exceptions to that rule of thumb - notably the batter and catcher tangling on a dribbler... but neither of the plays you describe need that crutch to rule correctly.