From another site:

[Skahtboi]

Stealing from another site, let's see what folks here have to say in the way of discussion about this.

Well, ASA has removed one of my arguments involving interference. Intent is now no longer required for interference on a thrown ball.

Rule 8 Section 2F 3 now reads: When a batter-runner interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter's box.

Comments: Removes 'intentionally' from the rule and allows the umpire to judge interference and not intent. It also matches the rule to the definition.

Rule 8 Section 7J 3 now reads: When a runner interferes with a thrown ball.

Comments: Removes 'intentionally' from the rule and allows the umpire to judge interference and not intent. It also matches the rule to the definition.

So with these rule changes in mind what do we have when R1 on 2nd base is hit with a thrown ball while sliding into third? If the umpire believes the ball would have beaten the runner to third, do we get an out? What happens if the short stop intentionally hits the runner with the ball? Does the short stop have to have a clear throwing lane to third? Or can he can just fire the ball at the back of the runner and claim interference? I'm thinking of that play where F6 is in the base line but behind the runner when they field the ball. The runner is between F6 and third base. F6 turns and throws straight down the base line and hits the runner instead of stepping to the right or left to establish a throwing lane before throwing the ball.

Source, Georgia Blue Forum; GaBlue. 2006.

[Dakota]

Quoting myself when this rule change was being discussed prior to be adopted...

...this rule change is senseless, brainless, idiotic, ill-advised, irrational, ridiculous, mindless, ludicrous, absurd, half-witted, nonsensical, daft, illogical, unintelligent, irresponsible, scatterbrained, addled, misguided, injudicious, imbecilic, addleheaded, insane, mad, incoherent, outrageous, preposterous, unreasonable, asinine, unwise, careless, cuckoo, boneheaded, goofy, dumb, half-baked, harebrained, screwy, loony, batty, and nutty.

I'd go on but both my thesaurus and I have run out of words.

ASA insiders seem to forget that 99.99% of the ASA umpires and coaches are NOT insiders and will not be attending a rules clinic taught by a member of the NUS. This means that the vast majority of ASA umpires will be hearing about this rule change and how to officially interpret it 3rd or 4th hand from the "official" interpretation about the runner "committing and act" or whatever. And, the vast majority of coaches will hear about it from their buddy who coaches another team or from their league and the "interpretation" will either be completely missing or horribly mangled.

Besides, I'll bet you dollars to donuts even the NUS will not teach this rule change the same way.

Somebody must have thought the game was getting too boring and wanted to add some coach-to-umpire excitement.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

coach-to-umpire excitement.

Just what the game needs.

[rwest]

....when I saw my post on officalforum.com. Here's the reply I got and my comment.


From AtlUmpSteve....

We don't yet have the official interpretation how to call this revised rule, but I suspect, from all I have heard, that your play is either a "no call" or an unsportsmanlike act by F6, if it is deemed intentional by the umpire.

The purpose of this rule change, as I understand it, is to now penalize acts of interference that were previously ignored by an umpire because the umpire couldn't or wouldn't judge intent. It will require an actual "act" of interference, something specificly done to interfere, something more substantive than simply running the bases in a proper and legal manner. In this play, waving the arms, kicking out the leg to hit the ball, or altering the path knowingly, would qualify.

If the shortstop hits the runner who is doing nothing abnormal, it is E6, not interference; or else it may be an ejection, in an obvious and extreme case by F6.
__________________
Steve Marcus


And my reply....


That makes sense and thats how I would call it. A runner should not be penalized for running the bases in a normal fashion. It dawned on me after I wrote my first point that ASA was just removing the need to judge the act as intentional. The actions that would constitute interference are probably still the same, now we just don't have to determine if it was accidental or intentional. The runner would still have to do something beyond normal action that would interfere with the defenses ability to make an out. I also noticed that ASA put in a definition for making a play. I like the added definition.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

..

That makes sense and thats how I would call it. A runner should not be penalized for running the bases in a normal fashion. It dawned on me after I wrote my first point that ASA was just removing the need to judge the act as intentional. The actions that would constitute interference are probably still the same, now we just don't have to determine if it was accidental or intentional. The runner would still have to do something beyond normal action that would interfere with the defenses ability to make an out. I also noticed that ASA put in a definition for making a play. I like the added definition.

So, what's the difference? Even with the word "intentional/intentionally" included in the rule, there are umpires ruling that a runner's failure to act was in itself interference. How do you think umpires like that are going to rule now? Remember, there are 35K ASA umpires and any additional guidance available, IMO, is better than a simple black and white statement in the book which makes the rule vague, at best.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, what's the difference? Even with the word "intentional/intentionally" included in the rule, there are umpires ruling that a runner's failure to act was in itself interference. How do you think umpires like that are going to rule now? Remember, there are 35K ASA umpires and any additional guidance available, IMO, is better than a simple black and white statement in the book which makes the rule vague, at best.

I can't imagine that there is a problem at any decent level of umpiring where the above listed play is being called INT. I dont think I've ever seen it called.

I would say the ones most affected by the rule are the ones that were vague and now more vague -- steal to 3rd with batter in box, delayed swing, some of the INT's discussed recently on this board, etc.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I can't imagine that there is a problem at any decent level of umpiring where the above listed play is being called INT. I dont think I've ever seen it called.

I can because I have seen it. Think about the umpire that call OBS because a catcher is standing in the baseline while the runner is rounding 3B. Think about the umpire ejects a player for throwing a bat back toward the dugout; not in anger, to be have it put away. Think of......well, you get the idea.

There are still too many "black and white" umpires that do NOT get the proper instruction, interpretation or just want to apply THEIR personal interpretation to a rule. Teams which travel to multiple tournaments see these guys/gals all the time in different cities and it drives the coaches nuts.

Remember a year or so ago when a poster noted that his UIC finally admitted that his (UIC's) belief that the ASA rule change for the previous year (requiring possession of the ball to avoid OBS) was not a mistake?

I believe this was either a state or metro UIC. Well, if a state or metro takes it upon themselves to make personal determinations on such a major rule change, what do you think happens with the interpreters/trainers/mentors at the local level?

There is very little question that those who work the upper-level NCs will/should not have a problem with applying the reworded rule on INT. However, you still need to worry about the other 30K plus and that is where my concern lies.

[greymule]

It's too bad that ASA softball does not have its equivalent of the J/R, the annotated rule book, the BRD, the MLBUM, the PBUC, and so on.

And even with all those publications, OBR contains problematic plays.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by greymule

It's too bad that ASA softball does not have its equivalent of the J/R, the annotated rule book, the BRD, the MLBUM, the PBUC, and so on.

And even with all those publications, OBR contains problematic plays.

I'd like to see the softball version of J/R or an annoted rule book - Bennett saw to it that we've got a rules differences book. With some of the other books, I don't see a need for them. What would be a pipe dream would be to see some of the alphabet soup sanctioning bodies go away.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I suspect that would be even worse. As it stands now, too many people (coaches and umpires alike) can't reconcile differences in the ASA rule book, the POE's, the umpire manual, and the casebook. Already four documents, and most coaches haven't read even one.

Add further that OBR rules (at least to my knowledge) aren't tweaked annually; and that every tweak or change almost universally creates a conflict in one or more of the four documents.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, you still need to worry about the other 30K plus and that is where my concern lies.

Mine, too, although I'm actually more concerned with the hundreds of umpires locally than with your 30K nationally, along with the coaches who will only pick up the high points of the rules changes, and some of those will be second or third hand.

On the face of it, removing "intent" means this includes "accidental" and "unintentional." That is the way far too many will believe the rule to be, and therefore start looking for dodgeball outs.

This change, and the inability to deal with the chaos at 18U with pitching distance, has convinced me that the rules changing process at ASA is broken.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This change, and the inability to deal with the chaos at 18U with pitching distance, has convinced me that the rules changing process at ASA is broken.

I don't believe it is broken. For that matter, this system is probably the most democratic and fairest in the world (JMO). However, it is also probably one of the most demanding.

You need to remember, this process isn't a group of game and administrative officials getting together the tweaking the game to suit themselves.

This is a very diverse group which includes players, managers, coaches umpires, commissioners, affiliated reps, parks & rec reps, sports assn. folks, etc. which decide that is right to change or not. Is it a slow process? Sometimes, but it does work.

Each proposed rule change, no matter how ludicrous it may seem, is accepted, reviewed by numerous committees and subcommittees, each offering a recommendation. A good point is that in most committees, anyone is allowed to speak and/or offer an opinion, not just council or committee member. Some committees are so aware of the presence of non-council members, the chair will specifically ask if any "guests" have anything to add to the discussion.

All recommendations are reported to the Rules Committee which offers a final recommendation base upon their vote. Even then, the recommendation to approve or reject can be challenged on the floor to the entire general council. To win the vote on the floor, the motion to accept or reject must pass with a 60% majority. If for some reason an amendment was made during dicussion on the floor, it must pass by a 75% majority.

Yeah, it's a tough system, but there is no question that it is fair as it can possibly be. However, that doesn't mean that everything is always right. There have been changes in the past reversed the following year once we see how the change affected the game.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't believe it is broken. For that matter, this system is probably the most democratic and fairest in the world (JMO). However, it is also probably one of the most demanding.

You need to remember, this process isn't a group of game and administrative officials getting together the tweaking the game to suit themselves.

This is a very diverse group which includes players, managers, coaches umpires, commissioners, affiliated reps, parks & rec reps, sports assn. folks, etc. which decide that is right to change or not. Is it a slow process? Sometimes, but it does work.

I agree with what you write. It ain't broken, but it could use some improvement.

Specifically, there should be a full-time linguistic grammarian who can take the rules and make them make sense. Especially in light of the fact that less than 1% of the 35K umpires out there use nothing more than the rule book and case book.

The book needs to be re-written from cover to cover, if for no other reason that for effective business communication.

[tcannizzo]

So, let's figure out what might make the most sense in applying this particular rule change. And how might be the best way to manage the 2007 game.

Suggestions:
1. It is not a rule change, just a clarification of wording for INT regarding non-batted balls.
2. INT by definition is an act which implies intent. Therefore, there is no such thing as non-intentional interference.
3. The call is INT. The no-call is incidental contact.
4. There are no changes in the way INT will be called in 2007.

Feel free to word-smith this list in any way.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

So, let's figure out what might make the most sense in applying this particular rule change. And how might be the best way to manage the 2007 game.

Suggestions:
1. It is not a rule change, just a clarification of wording for INT regarding non-batted balls.
2. INT by definition is an act which implies intent. Therefore, there is no such thing as non-intentional interference.
3. The call is INT. The no-call is incidental contact.
4. There are no changes in the way INT will be called in 2007.

Feel free to word-smith this list in any way.

Ohhh I know this one!! Pick me! Pick me!

Ok.. um.... I pick 1.... no wait!!! 4!!! wait wait wait.. ugh I get so nervous on tests... I pick 2 .. ugh crap.

Never mind, some one else can guess.