![]() |
|
|||
I don't see the issue. "Actively hindered" was a last minute change when they moved to remove "intentional" from most rules. I wasn't a fan of the removal for the sole reason that some umpires would start calling everything that didn't seem right to them as INT.
At the time, their reasoning was that the word "intentional" wasn't part of the definition. I thought they were out of their mind since the "intent" wasn't supposed to be part of the rule, but a condition under which the rule is applied. As I understand it, the "actively hindered" was added after a RUIC pointed out the catcher could just clock the batter for an INT call. I believe part of the reason it was removed was because there were umpires justifying a "no call" with a "I can't read the guy's mind" excuse. And yes I have heard that from umpires in real life and in social media. "Actively hindering" simply means the batter acted in a manner which hindered the catcher from making a play on a runner. Finishing up a swing or staying still in the box to allow the catcher to make a throw is not actively hindering the catcher. One of the comments made during the council meeting was that only the wording was changing, but the manner in which the INT rules applied should remain as before the change.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Three plays | AremRed | Basketball | 8 | Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:16am |
ASA - June Rule Clarifications and Plays | NCASAUmp | Softball | 1 | Wed Jun 15, 2011 02:27pm |
May ASA Rule Clarifications and Plays | Tru_in_Blu | Softball | 11 | Sun May 10, 2009 09:58pm |
Two KCI plays | OverAndBack | Football | 5 | Mon Oct 06, 2008 03:28pm |
How would you rule on these plays. | gordon30307 | Baseball | 45 | Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:28am |