[greymule]

The J/R emphasizes that certain acts of "brushing" a fielder create situations in which "contact is probably incidental." These include "bumping" or "brushing" a fielder before a fly ball has reached its apex, or a fielder positioning himself to field a ball rolling along a foul line. Still, blatant interference that prevented a fielder from fielding a ball would apply even in these cases.

(Of course, there's also the incidental nature of the batter-runner's contact with the catcher as the B-R starts toward 1B and the catcher moves out to field a ball. And the exception when the "runner is touching his base when the contact occurs.")

The implication is that "bumping" or "brushing" a fielder in other situations is interference.

Otherwise, J/R seems to equate "contacts a fielder" with "interferes with a fielder" (attempting to field a batted ball). There is nothing concerning "incidental contact" except what I noted above. There is also nothing about play proceeding normally after the interference.

It does seem unfair that the defense can lose an easy double play unless the interference is intentional. Perhaps there are some plays in which interference should be treated as a DDB: Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, Charles grounds to F6, who is run into by Abel. But F6 fields the ball anyway, tags Abel, then throws to F4 who relays to 1B for the triple play. The INT call will be tough on the defense.