[Jim Porter]

We all know that obstruction was once an immediate dead ball. Then some rules committee decided one day that a delayed dead ball would be wiser. Why not a delayed dead ball with interference? A lot of umpires already do it. Umpires I know -- possibly even myself -- would've just let the play go. Even one umpire at least had the confidence in himself to admit as much right here in this thread. So I guess I can't understand why folks think I'm coming from left field on this one.

Gee said, "Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers."

Gee, I wasn't aware contact was illegal. The last time I checked the definition of interference contact wasn't even mentioned. Instead words like, "interferes with," and, "obstructs," and "impedes," and, "hinders," are mentioned. Since when does contact alone automatically mean interference? And how can any umpire possibly know whether a fielder has been impeded, obstructed, hindered, or interfered with in his attempt to make a play if play is killed before an attempt is even made?