View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 28, 2014, 02:51pm
Dakota Dakota is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny A View Post
...I don't know if it was intentional for the word "intentionally" to be missing from the ASA rule.
Yes, it was intentional. ASA made a decision several years ago to remove "intent" from the interference rules. In my view, however, the net effect is simply to not require umpires to read minds. ASA still requires an "act" of interference. ASA just does not require the umpire to know that the intent of the act was to interfere.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote