[greymule]

This weekend I had the perfect example of the play that just won't go away for me.

FP 14u tournament. Bases loaded, 1 out, tie score late. Ground ball to F4, who throws home for the force.

Runner comes in standing up and runs into F2, who is standing up straight on home plate and reaching up the 3B line for the throw. It's definitely a bump, but it couldn't be characterized as a crash (both runner and F2 remained on their feet, and neither was knocked off balance). Almost simultaneous with the contact at home, the ball hits the runner's helmet and bounces away.

Naturally, the defensive coach wants interference.

But I think:

Crash? A bump is not a crash.
Did F2 have the ball? No.
Was the ball between F2 and the runner? Don't think so, since it hit the runner in the helmet (although F2 was reaching for it).
Was this the play the rulesmakers had in mind when they created the interference rule? No.

I know that many—maybe most—umpires would have called crash/interference on that play. I suspect that I would have heard less static if I had, too.

Coach says, "You mean she can just run into her like that?" My answer had to be yes, but I must say I didn't like saying so.

This is the play in the middle. The obvious crash is easy, and the play where the ball isn't there is easy. But this is the one I keep seeing.