2011 NFHS Rule Changes and POE

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Ugh - not liking 8-16-8. If you take out the word 'intentionally', then a runner 3 steps from 2nd who is retired via force, and subsequently hit by the throw that he couldn't avoid is now guilty of interference. Hoping there's some clarifications there.

Rubbish. Don't see this as any different than ASA's take on the rule

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Rubbish. Don't see this as any different than ASA's take on the rule

I agree that their INTENT is to be the same as ASA.

Problem is, when you change the wording and send this out to coaches, they see only the change (without having any background in ASA's discussions or interpretations of this very same rule). If they don't clarify this in either a POE or case or something, coaches (and many umpires who have no ASA training as well) will read this change to mean just what I said. And barring "official" clarification, they would be right in their assumption and argument that R1 did, in fact, interfere with that throw - and interference "no longer has to be intentional" to call her out.