"Intentional" interference
 

Many interference rules (NFHS, ASA and NCAA) require such to be "intentional." What means "intentional?" Is it limited to obvious situations such as pushing, shoving or slapping at the ball or defensive player? I know it's a judgment call, but what are some objective criteria that can be used in making the judgment?

Intentional has the word "intent", such as: it has a meaning, was meant this way, on purpose...

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. If you're dutch you welcome to send me a "PrivateMessage" so we can go on on dutch...

Intentional Interference
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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??? :D

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

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

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.<O:p</O:p
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.<O:p</O:p
NOTE: A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.

<O:p</O:pDoes this last one mean that if a defensive player intentionally throws a ball at base coach and hits him, that we have INT?:eek:


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.<O:p</O:p

Tony,

This isn't hard to understand. Only particular rules were changed. As was my point in discussing the proposed changes, the words "intent, intentional and intentionally" are merely words which offer guidance to the umpire, not the "be all to end all" definitives some believe they are.

And they are still used as a guide even though not included in the actual wording of the rule in all cases.

I've heard even umpires say things like "You better be able to prove it was intentional..." No, you've never had to prove anything. We're umpires officiating a softball game, not CSI preparing evidence for the prosecuting attorney. It always was and still is judgment. Maybe the new wording will be better down the road; for this year, I'm anticipating a few more "discussions" with coaches.

Apologies
 

Alex - I misinterpreted your reply. There are quite a few "flamers" on these lists. I work about 125 HS, College and ASA games/year and see about 75 more. Consequently, I have an opportunity to watch other umpires work. It appears to me that many of our colleagues are extremely reluctant to call any act "intentional" unless it involves a push, shove, etc. For example - interference with a fielder about to receive a thrown ball - F2 throws to F4 with runners on 1st and 3rd, hoping to goad the runner on 3rd to break for the plate. Runner going from 1st to 2nd flattens the F4 just as she was about to receive the throw. Runner scores. F4 was 5ft or so inside the base path between 1st and 2nd. Umpire makes NO call. Not the "safe" mechanic indicating no violation. Nothing. Of course, the coach of the team on the field is wild. His reply - no "intent." Seemed to me that leaving the base path was a clear indication of her "intent" to interfere. Jeff BTW - my family is originally from Buren. We left in 1658, however. Went to a little place called New Amsterdam.