You're probably right, but the real-world applicacion will be a massive FUBAR - similar to when they directly declared that blocking a base without the ball was obstruction; two years laters I'm still having to discuss that one with coaches, still hearing of umpires calling it as the POE is written.

They have taken a word with a specific meaning - the interference was intentional - and substituted a vauge word - the "act was committed"??? Of course it was committed - the bat was dropped, the runner ran, the batter moved in the box, etc., etc.

So, which of those "committed acts" results in a better rule without "intent"?

yeah, youre definately preaching to the converted. With some of the definitions, INT is already bad enough in certain instances that have been discussed here and ezteams.. without making it worse through vagueness. Youre definately right an "act", the batter taking a breath is an "act". Its just going to have to be explained over and over to an unreceptive listener (coaches).

lame

no one cares about that game.

lame, all 6 players are going to be pissed.

we'll see how this goes.. let em play I suppose.

they already flop and throw themselves around and have virtually no pitching restrictions.. Just get it overwith and outlaw illegal pitches in mens FP, its obvious there is no technical issue that anyone wants called, especially when you are out and out told that at the tournies.

what about some of their games?

hope ya stand up for whats right here mike, theres enough but kissing.. someone can speak up.

later dude.

My bad. That should read "now 4'X7' "

From what I understand NSA has already changed their 18U to 43' and rumor is U-trip has done the same.

Much of the argument on the floor involved the point that many of these pitchers are actually 15-17, not 18 or older. It was also repeatedly mentioned that NFHS denied a change to 43' for the coming season, yet affording FL to continue using the distance. Meanwhile, I understand that Massachusetts Fed has approved the change to 43' in either '07 or '08 (unconfirmed).

I think you are all trying to bait me into more posts just to hit that number earlier. For the record, I never really paid attention to the number of posts until it was raised in another thread.

Here we go.

Yes, as the rule was explained in all committees, the runner restrictions for all 10U have been zapped. I believe there was a late amendment to make this for 10U A only.

As far as the batter in the box, the change to rule 7.6.Q to have it read, "When actively hindering the cather while in the batter's box." Conversely, the 7.6.R proposed change to drop the word "intentionally" when addressing the batter "interfering with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box" was rejected.

There was a serious discussion in the lobby including three members of the NUS (who shall remain nameless to keep my butt out of more hot water), an umpire very likely to join the NUS in the next year, myself and a commissioner concerning the two changes noted above and the other proposals involving the "intent" of interference.

From what I understand, the proposed changes were partially brought about by some folks wanting to be consistent between the definition and the rule. That argument - the word isn't in the definition, so it shouldn't be part of the rule (Yeah, well, I don't see the word "actively" in the definition, either ;) ).

A rewording of the following rules for the purpose of removing "intentional" or "intentionally" we also approved:

8.2.F.3
8.7.J.3

In the same category, these same changes were rejected for rule:

8.7.J.4

For the record, I spoke out against removing the "notion of intent" as it applies to rules 7 & 8 in a few committees. I'm sure some folks, understandingly, didn't care to hear opposition, but I did not receive any negative feedback on my comments.

From conversations as the one noted above, the manner in which the umpire applies the interference rules should not change. I think we will see different "buzz" words/phrases come out of new interpretations, such as "actively hinder", "commits an act of interference" along with the ever-reliable "in my judgment".


The "inning-ending out" was approved on the floor after the Rules Committee rejected it. This is also true of a proposal changing the HRs allowed at the Master's level of SP. There were a handful of changes which were rejected in a majority of committees that were approved and presented to the General Council by the Rules Committee. This sort of makes you wonder if the format may not need some tweaking.

Then again, there were some unbelievable votes in committee. For example, there was a proposal to change 5.5.A to allow a run to score when the Tie Breaker rule is applied. Presently, a run is only scored when a runner touches 1st, 2nd, 3rd and HP. This just added a sentence to allow the run to count when the runner touches 2nd, 3rd and HP when positioned at 2B as the runner in the application of the TB. The JO committee, whose games is affected by this rule more than any others, reported a "reject" on this proposal. Even through the Playing Rules Committee meeting, council members voted against a change that could not, by common sense or the rule itself, could not be rejected.

I honestly believe that many of these changes are going to need to be hashed over and some slight changes in how it will be presented in the wording of the rule will occur. That will make the coming UIC Clinic not only interesting, but very important for every UIC to attend.

When it all comes down to the final draft, I think there will be some additional debate and those in charge will give us the appropriate tools to enforce the rules in the proper manner.

This is the biggest bunch of BS ever.

That should totally count as two posts.

were there any rules proposals to make senior SP more interesting than the losers bracket of a bowlers tournament?

What about removing "elite" status from slow pitch umpires? Thats like an oxymoron or something

Keep that up and you may be declared the board's on-line expert on oxes and morons. After all, experience counts, does it not? :D

(Yes, I know that should be "oxen", but that just doesn't quite fit the joke)

WOOT!

I knew if I stuck it out, I would be the winner!

wrt:
"there was a proposal to change 5.5.A to allow a run to score when the Tie Breaker rule is applied. Presently, a run is only scored when a runner touches 1st, 2nd, 3rd and HP. This just added a sentence to allow the run to count when the runner touches 2nd, 3rd and HP when positioned at 2B as the runner in the application of the TB. The JO committee, whose games is affected by this rule more than any others, reported a "reject" on this proposal. Even through the Playing Rules Committee meeting, council members voted against a change that could not, by common sense or the rule itself, could not be rejected.",

does it count if the runner touches 1st on the way to 2nd?

what the heck are you two talking about?

DOH! I get it... so the Ezteams Sams of the world can't say the run doesnt score because of that rule.