ASA Convention Notes

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Mike said intent is removed from “most” interference rules.

A quick scan of the rule book has intent required for interference here:

7-6-K Exception-2 (ball roll into dropped bat) Always out?
7-6-Q (hindering catcher while standing in the box) Dodgeball #1?
8-2-E Running lane violation, with orange base, play from foul territory, BR may run in fair territory and is not out if hit with the thrown ball, unless intentional. Dodgeball #2?
8-2-F BR intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the box. Dodgeball #3?
8-7-J-3 Runner interferes with a thrown ball. Dodgeball #4?
8-7-J-4 With a player on a deflected ball. Omniscient runner rule?
8-7-L Kicks a fair ball an infielder has missed. Reward poor fielding rule?
8-7-O Coach interferes with a batted or thrown ball. Dodgeball#5?
8-7-P Retired / scored runner. The Harry Potter runner goes “poof” rule?

That is nine rules. "Most" would seem to mean at least 5 of those. OK, now, you tell me, for which 5 of these you think it is a GOOD thing to remove intent?

well the worst one is obviously the batter in the box. I dont see how they can even be considering removing intent from that. If they do that, if I was coaching, on a steal to 3 I would teach my catcher to nail the batter. So will MANY other coaches.

[wadeintothem]

Remove intentional from most interference rules. The manner in which the calls are made are not to be changed. Now, the umpire is to judge whether the player/coach "commits an act" which causes interference. This will be better defined at the Bienniel UIC Clinic in February. I cannot wait.

As I reread it...

This could mean no practical difference in application, aside from the ASA causing us trouble w/ trying to explain it to the coaches. It very well could be more like the "uncaught/dropped 3 K" argument, where the argument is language used as opposed to any practical difference on the field. ASA Loves to goof with wording for no reason whatsoever but to make it more difficult to read.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

As I reread it...

This could mean no practical difference in application, aside from the ASA causing us trouble w/ trying to explain it to the coaches...

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"?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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).