"Intentional" interference

[jrvankirk]

Dutch - You have the better of me. You are obviously a gifted mind reader. The rest of us have to rely upon objective circumstantial facts to determine a person's "intent." Thanks so much for your help.

[Dutch Alex]

No I'm not a mind reader, however what helps for me is asking myself: "why did she do that? Did she interfer as a lack of skills or was it indeed intended?" The higher the level of competition, the sooner it's intentional therefor the lower the level it's often more a lack off skills...
At a high level (here in the Neth.'s 1st and 2nd national competition) a slight change in walking the line towards the bases can cause a intended interference.
Hope you've now got the help you wanted... And please be sure, I didn't want to be rude or offend you.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jrvankirk

Dutch - You have the better of me. You are obviously a gifted mind reader. The rest of us have to rely upon objective circumstantial facts to determine a person's "intent." Thanks so much for your help.

Wow. that was uncalled for. You asked for help, Dutch offered it. Good grief.

If you're having trouble determining intent without being a mindreader, look for an action. It doesn't have to be pushing, shoving, etc - it could be as simple as deviating from the path he was initially taking, or raising an arm. If he DIDN'T take an action, he probably didn't do anything on purpose.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Wow. that was uncalled for. You asked for help, Dutch offered it. Good grief.

I thought that he was referring to the comment Sander on made family lineage. This one:

Originally Posted by Dutch Alex

Your familyname indicades a dutch history, perhaps you are dutch and don't speak english to well... please don't be offended by this, I can be miles off.

Maybe I am wrong though. But I was taking jrvankirk's comment about being a mind reader to be addressing that, not the intent part of his post.

[Dakota]

Sheesh.... are we so PC hyper-sensitive around here now? Looked to me like Dutch Alex noticed the ethnic moniker, recognized the Q as having to do with word definition and application, and offered an alternative to English for addressing the question. Sheesh...

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Sheesh.... are we so PC hyper-sensitive around here now? Looked to me like Dutch Alex noticed the ethnic moniker, recognized the Q as having to do with word definition and application, and offered an alternative to English for addressing the question. Sheesh...

Hmmm...since this is a computerized forum, does that make it PC PC hypersensitive???

[Chess Ref]

Gotta agree with Dakota on this. Seems like Dutch was just reaching out to possibility another Dutchmen.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

Gotta agree with Dakota on this. Seems like Dutch was just reaching out to possibility another Dutchmen.....

Ditto.....................

[tcannizzo]

Looks like the 2007 ASA Rule Book has a way to go...

Here are some quotes that show that INTENT is still necessary for some forms of INT.

Rule 8 - Section 2 - The Batter-Runner is OUT:
K. When the immediate preceding runner who is not out intentionally interferes, in the umpire’s judgment, with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or throw a ball in an attempt to complete the play on the batter-runner.
EFFECT: The runner shall also be called out.

Rule 8 - Section 8 - The Runner is NOT OUT
M. When hit by a batted ball while touching the base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or a fielder making a play.

Rule 8 - Section 7 - The Runner is OUT:
O. When a coach intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball, or interferes with the defensive team’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out. Runners not out must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.

Does this last one mean that if a defensive player intentionally throws a ball at base coach and hits him, that we have INT?


Edited to add one more:
RS #33: Interference
c) A runner could be standing on a base and a defensive player bumps the runner while watching the flight of the ball. If the defensive player fails to make a catch on a ball that could have been caught, it is the umpire’s judgment whether or not interference should be called. The rule provides that a runner must vacate any space needed by a fielder to make a play on a batted ball, unless the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when the hindrance occurs. In this case, the runner should not be called out unless the hindrance is intentional.