[BoomerSooner]

I'm going to concede defeat on this one and appreciate you guys for pushing me to think about this and check into it some more.

I talked with a couple of guys that I've worked with and they also helped set me on the right path along with you guys. They did acknowledge that they've also heard the same idea that contact with the fielder is only interference if it actually causes the fielder to not be able to make they play, but explained to me why contact is sufficient to call interference.

They did agree that my example feels like a hole in the rule, but reminded me that the quality of play at our level (HS/MS age and below) decreases the likelihood of the defender being contacted and still being able to complete the double play. Conversely, at higher levels there is a greater expectation that runners be able to avoid contact with the fielder and thus the likelihood of determining there was intent goes up as well.

All that said, I still feel like the OBR language could be cleaned up. Ironically, one of the points made that helped change my view on this created an interesting discussion about the situation I used in which F3 is interfered with by the runner at 1B on a fly ball that ultimately drifts out of play. One of my colleagues pointed me to the language in 6.01(a10) that says "it is interference by a batter or runner when: he fails to avoid a field who is attempting to field a batted ball...". I'm not arguing that we should start calling outs for interference if the ball ends up out of play, but a literal interpretation of the rule as written suggests that as long as F3 was attempting to make a play, the contact by the runner qualifies as interference. I realize this isn't the intent of the rule but it was an interesting discussion.

Regardless of all of that, thank you guys for preventing me from making a potential mistake. I've been fortunate enough that all of my interference calls have been clear-cut, routine situations that aren't of the nature I described.