[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't agree the PU's actions indicate anything.

Au contraire. It's clear that the PU quickly realized it was ball four. His indicating this by flashing 4 fingers and commenting that it was ball four, followed by his not even acting on his initial interference call--he disregarded his call and the outcome entirely--make it obvious that his first actions were those of a PU calling batter interference.

1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw...

Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.

To what rules are you referring? I have an NCAA Baseball Rule Book in front of me and do not see those rule numbers and the wording you cite.

Regardless, as I said, if this is not batter interference, which it's not, then the only other possibility is interference by a batter-runner or runner, in which case any interference that hinders a fielder attempting to make a play off a thrown ball on an at-risk runner must be intentional (with the exception of Running Lane Interference on a dropped third strike).

Was this B.I.? No
Was this an intentional interference? No

Clear conclusion: No penalty of an out should be or can be recorded.

If one is to argue that the rules aren't very clear on this (and I submit they actually are, for the most part), then an umpire can employ the notion of "common sense and fair play." This is something the Jaksa/Roder manual does when it discussed possible interference without a play. Here's an example from that manual:

R1 bluffs a steal on the pitch. The batter swings and misses and stumbles across the plate into the catcher, who is throwing to second. At the time of the catcher's throw, R1 has already aborted his steal and is returning to first. The throw is wild and sails over the 2nd baseman's head. R1 advances to second: this is interference without a play since R1 was not trying to acquire second when the throw was made. The ball is dead and R1 must return to first.

Considering that R1 in the ASU-TX game wasn't trying to acquire second--he was awarded it on the batter's walk--nor was R1 trying to return to second after overrunning or oversliding it, a result similar to the J/R one might even be the way to go.