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.