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

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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."

I'm not sure why it is not being sold as a rule change, when it most definately is a change. Intentional meant "on purpose" in application. No longer is that a fact, if the O player acts causing INT, its interference.

It's a change. No doubt about it.