[greymule]

I think we assume the ball was caught because we're told it was knocked loose. I also assume that "to prevent a double play" means "in a deliberate attempt to prevent a double play." I think the lack of mention of IFR in the test question was an oversight on the part of ASA. And apparently it might make a difference, since the BR would then have interfered after being called out.

I mentioned OBR to show how its rule prevents the unfairness. Personally, I find it instructive to study rules differences, and I read the BRD all the time. Baseball and softball are different games, but knowing how each sport handles a certain situation can solidify each rule in my mind. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Now we're distinguishing between a play in which the collision occurs before the catch and one in which the collision occurs after the catch? Is an appeal at 3B permitted in the latter but not the former?

Tie score, bottom of 7th, one out, Abel on 3B thinks the squeeze is on and takes off with the pitch. BR swings and pops to F3 fair. Abel crosses the plate. As F3 is waiting for the ball to come down, BR collides with F3 and prevents the catch.

OK. BR is out on the interference, but Abel scores and the game is over. I contend that this should not be possible. You better call 911 before making that call.

And if we're making distinctions between a collision that comes after the catch and a collision that prevents the catch, what if BR knocks F3 down--immediate interference--but F3 catches the ball anyway and immediately throws to 3B to appeal the runner leaving too soon? Nullify the catch, disallow the appeal, and score the run? I want to see somebody make that call.

Now if, regardless of the timing of the collision, the runner from 3B still is liable to be called out on appeal, then I don't have a problem with the ruling. That would still leave open the question of whether or not she could return to 3B, but at least the offense could not benefit from violating a rule.