When I'm Wrong, I'm wrong: Interference is better without intent

[wadeintothem]

ASA: I've got about 15 games under my belt this year and I'm sold on the newly worded interference.

I was more at ease calling it when I saw it since implemented and not having to concern myself with intent. Today sealed the deal for me.

Situation R1@2b, pitch in the dirt steal is on. The batter was back in the box and stepped forward (still in the box) to get out of the catchers way (obviously presuming the catcher was going to be making the throw behind her), there is no way it was intentional. The catcher had caught the ball and was stepping forward to make the throw to 3. The catcher couldnt/didnt make the throw because the batter had stepped forward as well.

Last year I would have been thinking: That was obviously not intentional, she is in the box. To bad for the D.

This year, I rang her up.

It sealed the deal for me.

So, I'm sold. ASA did some out of the box thinking to remove intent then teach how they wanted it called and I think it's better.

As a big detractor when this rule went through, I'll say when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I feel better about this rule not having to decipher intent and only having to judge when O's actions warrant an interference call.