No "Intent" in interference

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

We are also talking about those umpires who try their best to learn the rule changes and how they are to be applied being unable to call it correctly without a firestorm because the of all the umpires who only know intent is no longer in the rule.

I am even less hopeful about this than I was (as if that was even possible) upon hearing that the national staff could not explain this without using the word "intent".

In fairness, mine did..

For example, when asked about the obvious example regarding this call.. R1@1b advancing and F4 throwing - beaning the runner.. he essentially said

Well did the runner interfeer with the play or did the fielder hit the runner with the ball? If the fielder hit this runner with the ball, and in your judgement, the runner did not interfere with the play, then its not INT. Its simply the fielder hitting the runner with the ball.



I will make my call this year based on direction provided to me by national staff (essentially no change in enforcement) and I will tell any pissed of coach that he can file a protest, but that is my ruling. In my written statement about what went down I will state something like: the rule change now made the rule ambiguous and upon a black and white reading of the rule, I in fact agree with the coach that it was INT and further clarification is required by ASA.

This is their mess, they can clean it up.

There will be enough protests and problems, especially from Umpires, this year that I am virtually certain ASA will revisit it next year, if not sooner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

In fairness, mine did..

For example, when asked about the obvious example regarding this call.. R1@1b advancing and F4 throwing - beaning the runner.. he essentially said

Well did the runner interfeer with the play or did the fielder hit the runner with the ball? If the fielder hit this runner with the ball, and in your judgement, the runner did not interfere with the play, then its not INT. Its simply the fielder hitting the runner with the ball.



I will make my call this year based on direction provided to me by national staff (essentially no change in enforcement) and I will tell any pissed of coach that he can file a protest, but that is my ruling. In my written statement about what went down I will state something like: the rule change now made the rule ambiguous and upon a black and white reading of the rule, I in fact agree with the coach that it was INT and further clarification is required by ASA.

This is their mess, they can clean it up.

There will be enough protests and problems, especially from Umpires, this year that I am virtually certain ASA will revisit it next year, if not sooner.

Meanwhile, we lose umpires because of the "firestorms" caused by this type of change.

Again, many of us will rule the same as in the past and begin every explanation with, "In my judgment..."

But you will still have people working championship play who will take this rule to heart and/or not have the courage to stand up to a ranting coach, only to have it called correctly by the next umpire. I cannot blame the coaches when they get upset over this issue and, trust me, they will.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Meanwhile, we lose umpires because of the "firestorms" caused by this type of change.

Again, many of us will rule the same as in the past and begin every explanation with, "In my judgment..."

But you will still have people working championship play who will take this rule to heart and/or not have the courage to stand up to a ranting coach, only to have it called correctly by the next umpire. I cannot blame the coaches when they get upset over this issue and, trust me, they will.

I teach at two local rec league clinics..

Very soon I will be standing in front of 30-40 coaches and umpires trying to sell this and explain this in a reasonable and understandable manner. Some of them will be 12-14 years old umpiring for their first time.

I do not look forward to it.

I am very glad I am not in your position, which is much more daunting.

[JefferMC]

It seems to me from what I've been reading here (no, I don't have the book) is that the basis is:

What ACTION did the offensive player/coach/whatever take that was outside the norm of what they would normally be doing that caused interference? ("outside the norm" are probably my coloring).

If the team had been hook sliding into 2B all day, then I don't see that they ACTED to cause interference.

If the batter MOVES to the back of the box, getting in the way of a snap throw to Third, then they ACTED, thus INT. If she had remained in a more normal spot, then no ACTION happened, thus no INT.

It seems to me that in the past, we've seen an action and were supposed to decide whether the "deviant" action was intentional. Now, whether or not the action was intentional, if it deviated from what we expect, it's INT.