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

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by tribefan1952

Hmmm... I'm not convinced about this one. What's to keep the catcher from deliberately throwing the ball at the RH batter who's standing in the box when there's a steal at 3rd base? Especially if you're sure to get the interference call... After all, it's a heck of a lot easier to hit a batter standing 4 feet away than to make a good throw and a good tag on the runner. This seems to give an unfair advantage to the defense.

And, how or why would she be sure to get the interference call under any set of rules? Certainly not under the new ASA rule, if you understood it.

The RH batter standing in the box when there's a steal of 3rd has to ACTIVELY hinder to be subject to an interference call. So, 1) she shouldn't get the call you think, and 2) she may get a call for USC and be ejected if the PU pays attention, and realizes she was deliberately throwing the ball at the batter. And, probably the coach goes, too, when he comes out attempting to protect the catcher that he foolishly instructed to do the wrong thing.

There is no advantage gained by either offense or defense in the new wording. The advantage is to the UMPIRE, who no longer needs to try to justify to himself or a coach how he knew the intent of a player. But, you need to read and understand what ACTIVELY hindering means, and what actions that a player does aren't ever going to be interference.