![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
There was no rule change.
Just a wording change to help those umpires who were previously ruling incorrectly to now find it easier to rule correctly. If the "new" wording is causing you to now rule correctly, and this ruling differs from what you would have done last year ... then it follows that you were ruling incorrectly LAST year, and this wording change has got you to rule correctly. So I guess the wording change worked for you.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pac-10 T right or wrong? | Nevadaref | Basketball | 35 | Sun Mar 11, 2007 02:00am |
Right or Wrong | wobster | Baseball | 10 | Thu Jun 17, 2004 01:56pm |
NCAA Pass Interference - Intent required? | mwingram | Football | 2 | Sat Nov 09, 2002 12:54pm |
I called ump interference. Right or wrong? | Danny R | Baseball | 2 | Wed May 01, 2002 05:47pm |
Intent/Letter of the law: Interference | Patrick Szalapski | Baseball | 1 | Sat Mar 17, 2001 07:20pm |