|
I realize it's a fine line we're walking. I just can't fathom why no source -- official or authoritative -- has ever put it so simply. Instead, we've got words to consider like interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, and confuses. I mean, that is the very definition of the word interference, isn't it? There's nothing about simple inconsequential contact where the fielder remains unhampered and unhindered. Even the Jaksa/Roder reference seems to go to great lengths to avoid committing to simple contact as interference, and one must imply by absence in order to know how they rule properly. Something doesn't seem right to me about that.
__________________
Jim Porter
|
Sun Aug 22, 2004, 08:19pm
Threaded Mode
