batter's interference

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Nonsense. It's not a matter of want ... it's a matter of understanding the intent of these admittedly poorly written rules. If you think this rule needs rewriting, you are correct and I don't think you'd get an argument from anyone here. However, if you are not ruling INT on the play you described, then you are not ruling as ASA has told us they want. Bring this up at a clinic if you like, as I know of no reason you should take me at my word ... but your ruling is incorrect.

Further - I posit that any umpire who bases a ruling on "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing" has a decent chance of that ruling being wrong - and even if right, right for the wrong reason. There ARE exceptions to that rule of thumb - notably the batter and catcher tangling on a dribbler... but neither of the plays you describe need that crutch to rule correctly.

I have been to clinics and advance umpire schools as I am sure you have. I have mentioned this to an member of the NUS when the rule changes came out. I asked if intent was still required or was it an oversight. He said it was still required. In this limited scenario, not in all cases. Now, granted, we didn't get into a long discussion. We were at the State Rules Clinic. I didn't give him scenarios and asked him to give me a ruling. But I did ask him. I don't know what more I can do to try to convince you that I have asked for the intent of the rule from ASA.

So who am I supposed to listen to? I'm not trying to offend anyone. I am just saying that I believe I have done my due diligence in trying to figure out the intent. The rulebook requires intent. A NUS member said intent is required. I don't see any casebook play that is exactly on point with my scenario. I wish ASA would just remove intent out of it. I think it would make my job easier. But they didn't.