|
GreyMule
I think that you are starting down a slippery slope when you interpret "intent" in a player's mind. Gonna be allful hard to sell that to a coach.
It is my opinion that Interference rules are designed to protect a defensive player; to allow them every opportunity to make a play. The wording of Interference rules are very clear that "Interference is Interference," whether intentional or not. (Except, of course, when interfering with a thrown ball or attempting to defeat a double play opportunity.)
Last year a FED Point of Emphasis was calling interference of the batter-runner if outside the 3' lane when a play was being made down the basepath. If the runner is outside the lane, and the catcher throws the ball into RF, you don't question Intent. She is out - period. She is in an area that belongs to the fielder. Conversely, if she is in the 3' lane (her authorized property), then the fielder is required to move and find a throwning lane outside the runner.
Same thing with a batter bailing out of the batter's box and the catcher throws the ball over her head into LF trying to retire a runner at third. No question about intent, contact not required. She doesn't belong there; that is the catcher's protected part of the field for her to make a play.
Now - how 'bout the space in front of an infielder trying to make a play?
|