Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
Coach interference - Judgement - not automatic. Hint of an intent requirement but not actually stated.
3.15 PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base. Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.
|
I think that what you're picking up from this case is not a hint of an intent requirement, but a negligence provision. An intent requirement would require that the coach intend to interfere.
A negligence provision requires the coach to do "all he could to avoid interfering with the play." It's not sufficient, as the ruling goes on to say, to give the appearance of doing all one can (and maybe that's the hint of intent you're picking up on), nor is it sufficient to do nothing and just stand there (as a batter may sometimes do in the batter's box).