[greymule]

Mike, in each play you describe, I would make the same call that you would.

Crash: violent collision.

However:

At no point in time has the "about to receive" been about or a determining factor in whether there is an interference call to be made.

POE #13 (2002 book): "Crashing into a fielder with the ball (interference): . . . the runner must be called out if he remains on his feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball or waiting to apply a tag, or if the defensive player is about to receive a thrown ball."

That looks like a determining factor to me. If in fact the "about to receive" clause has to do only with obstruction and not crashes, then ASA should not have listed it under a "crash/interference" POE and then gone on to say how the "interference" should be called. How can anyone read POE #13 and think that "about to receive" does not apply to interference?

It also seems to me that if ASA specifically stated that they deleted the word "deliberately" so that umpires would not have to judge what was in a runner's mind, they were tacitly conceding that umpires had indeed been trying to judge what was in a runner's mind. If they weren't supposed to be doing that, then ASA had misled them by using the word "deliberately." The umpires weren't misinterpreting; the were simply following the rule as written.

I agree, though, that you know it when you see it.

As far as "wreck" goes, while it's true that if it's interference or obstruction, it's not a wreck, it's still possible to have a severe, violent collision that is neither interference nor obstruction. That's a wreck.