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

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, that still doesn't do it for me.

As we saw in a clip from eteamz (below) too many different possible interpretations. In the clip, the batter, in no way, shape or form committed an act of interference. Yes, she took a step when regaining her balance, but with the rewording of the rule, you have umpires making calls like we see on the clip.

In the past, the catcher knew exactly where the batter could or could not go. Because of rulings like this, the catcher will now throw through the box and the batter beware. BTW, you don't think coaches are going to take advantage of this, do you?

I'll repeat what I have said before, and what I was told by multiple members of the NUS. The calls should not be different, it's just a better worded rule. Any umpire who couldn't read a player's intent in such a play before, isn't going to be any better an umpire now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsfj68JjJuY&mode=related&search=

SITUATION 1: With no outs and R1 on 2B, B2 swings at and misses the pitch. R1 breaks for 3B and while F2 is throwing to 3B in an attempt to retire R1, B2, while remaining in the batter’s box, backs up to readjust their footing and bumps into F2 causing an errant throw. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, B2 is out and R1 must return to 2B. (Rule 7, Section 6 Q)

With this being posted on the ASA web site, I have a different call between 2006 and 2007.

I don't like the new call, but it is not consistent with "The calls should not be different, just better worded."