Matt, I think it is a valid question. As a lawyer and a grammarian, I see no reason why this rule cannot be read two ways:

or

In the first interpretation, the word "intentionally" is part of clause (a) but not clause (b). In the second interpretation, the word modifies both clauses.

Thank you, Alaska Ump, that was my point. I think the strict interpretation of the language of the rule is illustrated in your first example--the rule describes one situation of intentional interference and a second situation of interference without requiring it to be intentional.

I just wanted to know which way the rule was interpreted and enforced, because the rules were not written by grammarians and have some grammatical errors. So my question remains, are umpires taught (and is the rule enforced) that both types of interference MUST be intentional for the runner to be out, or only that interference with a batted or thrown ball must be intentional but that any interference with a play on the runner--intentional or not--results in the runner being called out?

If the former, then they should edit the rule to look like your second example (or just delete the second instance of the word "interferes") so the rule could not be interpreted two ways. If the latter, then the rule is written as it is to be enforced.

Which way is it interpreted and enforced?

Well, the count is now 0-2!

We've been through this quite a few times. The ASA rule book is meant to communicate in a simple manner, not to be a book on a summer reading list.

It is also meant to give direction, not create obnoxious legalities that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

Go read MLB's book or the NCAA football book and see what you get when you want the rules written in the manner you suggest.

Read the words presented and I think it reads quite clearly.

Then again, that is just my opinion and I am NOT a lawyer or grammarian, but a simple hi skewl gratiate.

Wait just one gosh dern second.


Are we sure this "grammarian" thing is a real thing you can be?

Mike:

I think you misinterpreted my point. I am not suggesting the rulebook be rewritten. I am not suggesting that we add obnoxious legalities. I siimply noted that Matt is correct -- from a grammatical view, the rule in question is equally valid from either perspective.

I see no need to rewrite the rule. I will join Matt in asking which interpretation is preferred.

Okay, let's break it down:

First point

"When a coach intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball",

"OR"

Second point

"interferes with the defensive team's opportunity to make a play on another runner".

Clarification

"A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference".

I don't see any glaring grammatical shortcomings and the punctuation pretty much breaks the first sentence down to two distinctive independent scenarios connected by the disjunction "or".

Ah, now I understand!


If you intentionally hit a coach with a ball, thats interference.

;)

Actually, I would not put that by some people to coach. "Just try to hit the coach with the ball" could become a defensive strategy if the rule did not require intent.

Don't think that is so far fetched as we all know there are coaches who tell their catchers to just nail the BR in the back and look for the call.