Batter Interference?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think that is correct. There hasn't been on person from the NUS that has stated that we should call anything different than before the rule change. This change was clearly meant as part of an effort to clean up the grammar. All of the changes were noted with the reason that since the word "intentional" was not part of the definition, it shouldn't be in the rule. My argument was that using the words "intentional" and "intentionally" in the rule should be considered as guidance to the players, coaches and umpires.

Until the UIC Clinic, I'm not anticipating any changes in the application of the rules.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.