I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I'm confused.(I know that won't be a surprise to most of you!!)
Early in the thread Pete Booth gives the exact same example that I gave a couple of posts ago: "Here is another example; R1 interferes with F4, however, F4 still manages to get the throw off to F6 to complete the 4-6-3 DP. As soon as we rule interference, the play is dead and unless we judge R1's act of interference to be intentional, we call R1 out and leave B1 at first.
Interference is an IMMEDIATE dead ball. We do not Wait to enforce or enforce AFTERWARDS."
Granted, I worded the situation so that there was no contact and was probably alot more grey then Pete's example. However, in my situation there seems to be some agreement that if F4 is successful in picking up the ball and turning the double play, no interference would be called.
Garth subsequently says: "First, I suggest you look up the definition of interference. Interference, by definition, affects the play. It may not always affect the result of the play, but it affects the play....because most interference affects the play IMMEDIATELY, we kill it and enforce the penalty"
Thus my confusion, I think we can all agree that in my situation if F4 doesn't pick up the ball we're calling interference, however because he does pick it up we simply call the outs at 2nd and 1st.
BTW, I did look up "play" in OBR and it says: ""PLAY" is the umpire's order to start the game or to resume action following any dead ball. "
Like I said, I don't like to beat a dead horse, but I'm the sort of person who doesn't like the "This is how we do it because this is how we do it." What's the reason for it and does it make sense in all situations??