And we, he and I, . . .

Sorry, I couldn't resist. And, no, I am not the full-time grammarian.

While I agree that this helps others understand the NFHS viewpoint, there is a signficant difference between the example rules. A pitcher who wants to have both feet on the PP can do so, as the rule allows either option. The distance woud be fixed, so a pitcher who wants 40' would have no choice.
I'm not saying this means it should be changed or not, just that the comparison is not exact.

Ok, I am getting in on the end of this issue after we have changed topic a few times, man miss a day miss a lot I tell you what!!

Anyway, back to the OP, I have a stupid question. To me taking intent out of the rule book leads to more issues. I know anyone can cook up any play, so let's take a sample of my cooking.

Same situation, R1 heading to 3rd, SS fields the ball that throws to the open area around the runner, but that darn runner is fast and runs right into the throw, again this is my world I was there so take my word for it :) , no intent by the fielder to hit the runner, just timing. Last year I would say if the coach asked "Wasn't intentional coach not INT" This year what am I going to say? Again I don't have the new book so I have no clue how the whole picture comes together (POE, casebook and rule book cover to cover all sections combined) BUT, to me it opens the door to the following conversation.

C: "Blue, that is INT"
U:"No coach there was no intent"
C: "Don't have to have intent, rule changed this year"
U: "I know coach, but intent is assumed in interference and there wasn't any"
C: "Rule says interferes with a thrown ball, ball hit her, and skipped to the fence how is that not interfering?"
U: "There was no intent by the fielder to cause that ball to go, it was incidential contact"
C: "Don't have to be intent, rule chaged this year"......

On and on. To me in my little mind, it is making it MUCH harder NOT to call INT on these situation since there is no intent in the rule. UNLESS, another part of the book has changed that lists intent is required to have INT, but I have not heard of this. To me making this an implied thing, will make coaches feel like they are out of the loop, and if all they have is the book, where are they suppose to learn that intent is still required even though the book don't tell them that anymore???

We don't have all the feedback that will come from the NUS, but I would address your coach by saying the runner didn't commit an act of interference. The result may be that the ball hit the runner and that the fielder was therefore unable to make the play, but the runner committed no act that could be construed as interference.

The necessary act may be one of commission, or omission where an action would be expected; a case where neither occurred just isn't an act of interference.

I understand. If I didn't have anything better to do than be the moose-crossing guard, I would have done the same.

Just kidding, of course.

A Florida umpire's perspective:

No HS teams disbanded that I'm aware of. The teams with bad pitching at 40' were still bad at 43'. The good pitchers loved it -- and so did potential college coaches.

In my unscientific and limited sample of games, I didn't see any pitchers who had a big problem adjusting. Both varsity and JV games seemed shorter, if anything, with more balls being put into play. I don't think any studies were planned to compare runs per game, hits per game, or ERA statistics, but my impression was that all three went up a small percentage.

Mike,
:D
You said "I understand. If I didn't have anything better to do than be the moose-crossing guard, I would have done the same." From a slow pitch ump?? :D

Good catch Steve,
Slow pitch, isn't that were you stand and watch Moose cross home plate? And guard against too high or too low pitches? Guess he would have the experience to discuss being a moose crossing guard.:D

That's all you northerners speaking.

Here in the south, all slow pitch players are named Bubba, not Moose.

Steve,

Need I remind you that there is more action in two innings of a SP game than there are in many entire FP games?

Need I also remind you that I worked the little ball for 22 years before moving over to softball? Got bored with that game. Too many egos and not enough action. So now I just enjoy the action and tune out the egos.

BTW, the Mooses and Bubbas in the SP softball are becoming a myth in Championship Play.

Maybe so, Mike. That was just too good a straight line to pass up.

But I can just picture the BU in a SP game as a "crossing guard".

I did modified pitch this fall and loved it. You get a lot of action with a lot of bangers, a K zone that is very close to FP, and hitters that can crush the ball. If the pitcher stays legal, (you better call it if he does not) the ball will be very hittable. Even though I have not done any SP (yet) I have played SP and think that modified is the best of both worlds. I do prefer FP and I got my association letter yesterday getting us ready for the NFHS season. It is time to get stoked baby.

I agree, modified is a great game. Unfortunately, here on Long Island, men's modified is shrinking while SP continues to remain strong and fast pitch is growing rapidly. I think the problem with men's modified is a shortage of good pitchers.

well that.. and no one knows what the heck it is. Ive never even seen a modified game.

MP disappeared in my state a while back. We've tried to reintroduce it by bringing some teams in for a tournament, but the guys around hear are long on BS and short on the courage to try a more demanding game than SP.

Little do they know that many would do well as the adjustment from baseball to MP is much easier than to SP. Well, nobody said they were smart.