Batter Interference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Are those in favor of the language change arguing for such to give the umpire more leeway and to give coaches less grounds for protest? I've never considered "intentional" vague.. and they are obviously moving towards a more vague language for a reason. Those that argued for it had an argument, and Im wondering what that was.

My overall feeling is that they are creating a bigger problem with the confusion that will result with this language change (it is going to be READ by most as a rule change IMO) - than they are solving.

I've already given you the "argument", there is no more, just the word being in one place and not the other.

My side of the issue was pretty much what you are stating above. In the world of black and white umpiring, this change is going to cause more trouble than anything it can remotely resolve.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've already given you the "argument", there is no more, just the word being in one place and not the other.

My side of the issue was pretty much what you are stating above. In the world of black and white umpiring, this change is going to cause more trouble than anything it can remotely resolve.

Thanks mike.

I'm not hounding you, just genuinely curious as to the reasoning. You are about the only Umpire I know willing to share the insight of the upper levels of the ASA.

My response to this rule language change .. well in the words of Cartman..

Whatever whatever, i'll do what I waaant.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

There was no change in the application of the obstruction rule, either; just a change in the conditions under which it went into effect (had to possess the ball). Yet, the ASA "clarification" in the POE led many coaches (and some umpires, too) to believe that merely blocking the base was obstruction - didn't matter that the runner was 40 feet away or that the runner made to discernable change to her advance.

Removing the words "intent" and "intentional" - no matter how it is spun in the clinics - will be read as "intent is no longer necessary, Blue, you gotta call that... that runner got in the way of the throw..." yadda, yadda.

If somebody was all in a tither over the word "intentional" not being in the definition, that was more easily fixed by ending the definition this way...

"Contact is not necessary, but intent sometimes is."

There. Fixed. A definition is so the word can be understood when used in a rule. For example, "interference" must be with a play; in general getting in the way of a defensive player who is not making a play is not interference. It is not meant to cover all conditions under which the word may pop up in a rule. That is why there are separate rules.

See my litany of descriptive words about this change in the other thread.

If I didn't know better, you almost sound like you think rule changes and POE are supposed to make the rules clearer, rather than more confusing. One might even think you believe the rules could be consistent between sanctions.

Of course, we know you understand that the word intentional in the rule established when the interference in the definition was to be penalized, rather than ignored.

[JEL]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've already given you the "argument", there is no more, just the word being in one place and not the other.

My side of the issue was pretty much what you are stating above. In the world of black and white umpiring, this change is going to cause more trouble than anything it can remotely resolve.

One more!

Who has today's pool?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If I didn't know better, you almost sound like you think rule changes and POE are supposed to make the rules clearer, rather than more confusing. One might even think you believe the rules could be consistent between sanctions.

Of course, we know you understand that the word intentional in the rule established when the interference in the definition was to be penalized, rather than ignored.

Ya think??

[Andy]

Originally Posted by JEL

One more!

Who has today's pool?

Me, me.......

hey Wade....post something else to antagonize Mike, wouldya??????

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Andy

Me, me.......

hey Wade....post something else to antagonize Mike, wouldya??????

You know, talking about the "new" obstruction rule that came into being a couple of years ago will usually do it.

[debeau]

Dakota
No I would have called intereference without the injury .
I see I will have to be careful as to the words I use .
No place does not mean slowly put down it means put or toss or throw somewhere out of te way where there is little danger of it being in the way .
I would take it then you and others would allow the batter to hurl there bat anywhere without consideration.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Maybe ask why fastpitch needs the LBR, since you could just call "time" like in slowpitch. I suspect that may be a quicker trigger.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by debeau

I would take it then you and others would allow the batter to hurl there bat anywhere without consideration.

Speaking only for me (others can speak for themselves), no. You pose a strawman argument: if I disagree that the bat must be placed "out of the way" for safety reasons, then I therefore believe it can be "hurl{ed} anywhere without consideration."

The batter-runner may not interfere with the defense with the bat. And, the batter-runner may not throw the bat in anger.

Just about any other way or means or location for dropping the bat is legal.

Whether or not there was a more safe place to have dropped the bat is not a consideration.

[debeau]

OK That was extreme
However I will continue to call interference whenever a bat hinders confuses or interferes with a fielders chance to make an out .
I will say that I have never seen it happen except for that one time .

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by debeau

OK That was extreme
However I will continue to call interference whenever a bat hinders confuses or interferes with a fielders chance to make an out .
I will say that I have never seen it happen except for that one time .

The main point they were trying to make is the POE is very clear .. merely dropping a bat is not INT.

I think its a know it when you see it type situation. If you saw INT with the bat, I got no prob with the call.

[debeau]

Ahhhhh
Of course just dropping the bat isnt interference just the same as blocking a base isnt obstruction SOMETHING does have to happen .
My mistake for mis reading the writings