Last tournament of the summer.

[tcannizzo]

Same ASA State that I wrote about yesterday.
None of these is particularly funny, but you don't see it that often:

a.) Visitors are up by 15 going into bottom of 3rd. Home scores 1.
On to the 4th. Visitors are up by 12 going into bottom of 4th. Home scores 1.
On to the 5th. Vis coach is a friend and I said, "You'd better hold 8!"
Vis won by 14.

b.) Top half of 1st inning takes 21 minutes with a total of 2 runs scored.
Bot 1st takes 16 minutes. 2 runs scored. Yep, 37 minutes for 4 runs. No time outs, no delays of any kind. 90 minute time limit expired in top 3 with home team ahead. 6-4. 2 1/2 innings!

c.) Foul tip hits catcher's mitt, pops up about 10 inches and C catches it. There was only one strike on B, so no great call to make here.

Oh, and Mike:
d.) R1 on 1B. B hits ground ball to P. Ball deflects off P's glove and right to F4. The moment after F4 fielded the deflected ball, R1 makes solid contact with F4. BU calls "DEAD BALL - R1 OUT" and B safe at 1B.

I was not in the game, but my other two partners were working it.
Neither coach was happy with the ultimate ruling.
> Def coach argues that it can't be INT because F4 had already fielded the ball and therefore was not hindered fielding a touched batted ball.
> Off coach argues that there would have been a tag-throw DP and that B should be Out also. BU said that he didn't think there would have been a DP.

Now, I don't know if I saw anything that the INT was really intentional, but I would have called INT also. And I would have ruled B out also because there was an "opportunity" to make a DP.

So, my question is why do we still have "intent" with certain forms of INT?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Now, I don't know if I saw anything that the INT was really intentional, but I would have called INT also. And I would have ruled B out also because there was an "opportunity" to make a DP.

So, my question is why do we still have "intent" with certain forms of INT?

Since this was a deflected ball, you can't rule interference unless you judge whatever the runner did to be intentional. Since you say it didn't appear intentional...no interference. (8-7-J(4)).

You need more than "an opportunity" for a possible double play. You need to judge that whatever the runner did was an actual part of an intentional effort to prevent a double play. Again, you said you didn't see anything intentional...(8-7-J(3) "EFFECT").

Why is "intent" still in some rules, even after it was removed from others? I think that it is because the removal of "intent" from some rules was more of an editorial change than an actual rule change, or change to how we actually umpire these calls. The removal of "intent" seemed to be a concession to those that argue "we can't be mind readers" and thus could never possibly know a player's true "intent". It got removed from a couple of the rules that come up most frequently and cause the most controversy (like "intentionally" interfering with a thrown ball) but didn't get removed from others just because those others come up less frequently and probably weren't the focus of the discussions.

It's common for people to say, "They removed "intent" from the rules a few years ago". But they actually removed "intent" from just a couple of rules. There are plenty more that mention intent that were never touched!