|
The protest was accepted because it was agreed that there was interference on the play, it's just that it was not intentional. This is the basis of the entire question.
If the umpires have determined that there was interference does it make a difference if there was "intent". That is the title of the thread.
If the umpires did not feel there was interference, they wouldn't have accepted the protest. In the write up after the game, the umpires wrote that there was no "intentional interference".
It would be my understanding from the rule book that intent has nothing to do with interference. Interference is an automatic call.
Interference without intent - 1 out
Interference with intent - 2 outs
The umpires did decide that the interference was not intentional, which should have resulted in just R1 being out. I am looking for some justification that would allow this to be a "no call" after interference has been determined.
|