Running Lane / Interference

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by mick

bate:
transitive verb
1: to reduce the force or intensity of : restrain

snorman75,
Several respondents are try to bate you, because the information you are posting is incorrect and indefensible.
The purpose of the forum is to help, not hinder.
mick

I have heard opinions, no facts. I even agree with the opinions, but still no facts.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by snorman75

I agree with everything you said, I call it that way, but is it right?

I am sorry but I disagree, and there is the rule and I have 10 questions form the 2007 NYS high School softball exam, that tell me I better not take intent into account when calling interference.

"Intent" and "actively hindering" are two completely different things, which is what all of these posters are trying to get you to understand. Perhaps if you came off of the defensive, and actually reread what has been posted in response, you will start to understand the "intent" of ASA's removal of the word "intent" from the rule. Several people have clearly explained this.

[DaveASA/FED]

I think we are looking too deep into this (ok that might be the understatement of the year). But as much as I hate to admit it I see what snorman is saying, just reading the rule it appears that if they cause INT they are out, but I think it is if they DO something that causes INT then you have an out. Now that sounds like the same thing but it is NOT, if they are running the bases as the normally would and the ball hits them in the back I have nothing (besides time when action stops to make sure they are ok ) Now if the BR is rounding 2nd heading for 3rd and they adjust the way they are running to try to put themselves inbetween 2nd base (throw from outfield being relayed) and the F5's glove that is moving as it tracks the ball and there is contact then I have INT, the runner did something to cause the INT, he / she moved to get themselves in a position to be hit by the ball thus creating the INT, in the first example I had, he / she was running to the base and the ball contacted them, they didn't do anything to make it happen so there is no INT.

As it was described to me the rule should be called the same way, it just takes out the umpire trying to judge intent, since we can't know what they were thinking, but we can judge what they did.


And if questioned by the coach "Coach in my judgement that was not INT" that is not protestable and there is no rule interp they can bring into the conversation to make it protestable.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

... I see what snorman is saying, just reading the rule it appears that if they cause INT they are out....

In fact, I predicted his exact argument in a commentary I wrote about the removal of "intent" at the time the change was made. Here it is, again,...

The "legalization" of dodge ball rules.

The change to remove intent from most of the interference rules that previously required intent is almost breathtaking at first reading. Now, for example, if a runner is hit with a thrown ball, intent on the part of the runner is no longer required for there to be an interference ruling. Supposedly, this was done to make the playing rules more consistent with the definition of “interference” in Rule 1. Well, did anyone stop to consider revising the definition instead? Here, I offer this free of charge. Add this to the end of the last sentence of the Rule 1 – INTERFERENCE: “, but intent sometimes is.” So the rule would now read,

INTERFERENCE: The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary, but intent sometimes is.

I have read the views of the NUS that this is not really a change, and that all that was intended (use of that word is ironic, don’t you think?) was to not require the umpire to think he had to get inside the player’s head. Phooey. Somebody just got a bug up their butt about the lack of “intent” in the definition.

Now, instead, what we will have is a season of poor calls by umpires who now believe that ASA has become the ADA (Amateur Dodgeball Association) calling runners out because of some imagined interference. Not to mention all the “discussions” with coaches who will now want to argue with an umpire who makes the proper call that “Ya gotta call that, Blue, intent is not required.” So, this is an improvement?

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

And if questioned by the coach "Coach in my judgement that was not INT" that is not protestable and there is no rule interp they can bring into the conversation to make it protestable.

We were told to say that too.

Like I said I have told a coach we had no interference when the runner was sliding in to a base and the throw hit her is the back.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

In fact, I predicted his exact argument in a commentary I wrote about the removal of "intent" at the time the change was made. Here it is, again,...

Which was my stance when I spoke against the change at every committee meeting I could attend in Colorado Springs. This was such an intriging topic among umpires, it was being discussed at length by a few of us in the hotel lobby, were interupted by a fire alarm and the discussion continued in the parking lot.

I understood their explanations, but saw no reason to remove what they considered extraneous information since it actually provided more precise information in rules where, as we are still experiencing, some umpires need additional guidance.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which was my stance when I spoke against the change at every committee meeting I could attend in Colorado Springs. This was such an intriging topic among umpires, it was being discussed at length by a few of us in the hotel lobby, were interupted by a fire alarm and the discussion continued in the parking lot.

I understood their explanations, but saw no reason to remove what they considered extraneous information since it actually provided more precise information in rules where, as we are still experiencing, some umpires need additional guidance.

So we have a fire alarm to blame, lol.