[IRISHMAFIA]

There is nothing wrong speaking along the lines of "the player was doing what the player is supposed to do". No one is stating that should be the basis of one's ruling, but certainly should be taken into consideration when determining whether the actions caused interference. As previously noted, part of what the player "is supposed to do" is avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play when dictated by the rules.

Often the difference between interference and a no call is the changing of the circumstances which is where "doing what s/he is supposed to be doing" is a consideration.

Since day one of the change in the rules concerning INT, the simple example that has been offered involves a runner advancing toward 2B on a ground ball to an infielder. The scenarios involved that player being retired on a force @ 2B and getting hit with the relay to 1B. Working with the assumption that the defense had a valid opportunity to put out the BR @ 1B.

If the runner was simply proceeding to 2B when being hit WITHOUT any additional antics, it is nothing, but a poor selection of where to throw the ball by the defender.

If the runner fell to the ground prior to the defender making the relay throw and then rises to his/her feet and gets hit with the throw, now you have INT.

The difference is that the circumstances changed in the second event. In the first, the defender can see the retired runner and should select a, and I hate using this term, throwing lane that would not involve any action by the retired runner. In the latter situation, the defender sees a clear path to throw the ball, but the retired runner, doing what s/he is supposed to do (avoid interfering with the defense's ability to make a play), should have stayed down. By moving into what was a clear path to throw the ball is an act of interference. That act changed the circumstances of the play in front of the teams and umpire.

It would be no different than a retired runner moving out of the already determined base path and into a throwing lane the fielder has chosen to make his/her throw to 1B.

A couple of you are probably tired of hearing this, but every year, one or two of this type of thread pops up which demonstrates the concern I voiced when ASA chose to change their wording on the INT rules. People avoided me in Colorado Springs because they knew my agenda that year and with the exception of a couple of NUS members who agreed with my concern, no one wanted to buck the movement.

However, every year you have calls like this one where an umpire took it upon himself to interpret the rule in a manner it was not intended to be interpreted. Of course, with the NCAA's recent demonstrations that target practice is an acceptable act by the defense to get a free out, I can see how people may believe it is true in all games even though clinical evidence may indicate otherwise.