Runners on 2nd and 3rd, no outs. Manny Ramirez is the batter and he hits a high chop between shortstop and third base. R2 and F5 make contact, but it doesn't really seem to affect the play as F5 still fields the ball cleanly and makes the out at first. R3 scored and R2 ended up on third.

But the third base umpire called interference on R2, immediately killing the play. He called out R2, put R3 back on third, and awarded Manny first.

I wonder how many of us would've delayed our interference call just a little bit to avoid the headache of making that call. I wonder how many of us would've justified our call by saying the contact was incidental since F5 made the play cleanly.

I know I would have unless I knew it was intentional.
All runners advanced at least one base and an out was recorded at 1B, we have incidental contact and play on.

"...to avoid the headache of making that call."

I don't see a problem with making that call. Don't call it, and F5 has to rush his throw, skys F3, the home crowd goes wild on the runs scored, and THEN call it?

Too many things to go haywire after it should be called. Kill it, and call it. Don't, and hope for the best. It may not initially seem that F5 got effected. But if he doesn't make that play to first, his manager will want a word with you.

Man, if you've got contact, and no, intention is not a critera here, that's interference. I hope I wouldn't be afraid to call it. BR vs. F2 is the exception here.


(edited for horrific grammer)

[Edited by kylejt on Aug 13th, 2004 at 12:27 PM]

The problem is that to make that call is to invite exactly what happened - a long visit by the manager. Terry Francona was on the field for quite awhile while the umpires explained and explained and explained. He still walked away shaking his head.

Whereas, if the umpires had simply waited to see if the contact affected play, I doubt anyone would've had a second thought. The play looked routine. The game would've continued without incident.

But that's exactly what happened. The crowd was going wild, the run scored, and no one knew until the play was over that anything out of the ordinary had happened. The umpires had to call the runner who had scored back onto the field. In fact, the contact wasn't noticable in real-time on television. They had to slow motion replay to see what happened. That's how routine the play looked.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 02:53 AM]

Hey, thats why they get the big bucks.

If the rules want it called differently, change them.

I don't understand this thread at all, Jim. Interference in this case is an immediate call and any contact by a runner on a fielder fielding a batted ball is interference. Period. End of story. I don't CARE whether the subsequent throw is affected, cause I've already killed the ball.

The umpires can't help Francona understand faster? Maybe Francona has the problem, although I'll still admit I still don't like him because of his Phillies days :)

--Rich

Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers.

Are you going to allow a run to score in order to avoid a confrontation with Franco, not me. The interference might not have effected the play but how do you know that at the time of contact? If the throw happened to go off target what do you do then? Could be a real blowout.

I don't know what Franco's exact point was but the umpire did exactly what he was supposed to do. Franco came out last week on a jumpstep pickoff that went out of play. U1 awarded R1 second. Franco wanted two. Franco was thrown and I wish Henry would do the same thing, the guy belongs in T-ball. G.
---------------------------------------------------------

I'm just guessing, since I didn't see the play you're talking about, but if the umpire is calling and killing this play nobody's seeing it right away. U3 is behind third, and nobody's watching him, much less hearing him in such an environment. Big play, big crowd, and U3 who's away from the ball is raising his hands.

Either way some manager is not going to be happy. That's a given. But a runner contacting a fielder making a play on a batted ball just has to called.

How could you NOT call it?

Before we dismiss Jim's "suggestion" out of hand, let's ask whether we might draw an analogy to the current technique used in basketball. Rich, you call that game, I know. So you're aware at the highest level of the philosophy known as the "patient" whistle or the "slow" whistle. Our CFO just wrote a piece about that. Jim Dixon covered it in depth a couple of years ago.

The idea is that there IS incidental contact, contact that has no effect on the play, even contact that looks illegal but isn't. That's why PBUC mandates the "That's nothing!" signal. (Now, in NCAA baseball, there is NO incidental contact: it's either obstruction or interference. But they stand alone.)

Someone said that though the contact didn't affect the play, it MIGHT have. The hasty "whistle" might also affect the play: The immediate dead ball prevents the defense from handling overzealous runners.

All of sports is moving to the advantage/disadvantage system of determining "fouls." I believe that's what Jim may have been suggesting.

I'm not saying the immediate call of dead ball is wrong. I'm saying that perhaps it's worthy of dissection, discussion. Don't dismiss change simply because it's change.

Carl:

I simply can't agree. Until baseball decides that we can "throw the flag" or "blow the whistle" later after judging whether the contact had an effect on the play, we make the call right away. If it's deliberate interference, then get another out. If it's not deliberate, the defense isn't ENTITLED to another out, even if they might have gotten more than one.

The analogy you make is interesting, but irrelevant. The runner is required to run in a fashion so that he doesn't interfere with the fielder. If there's contact between a fielder and a runner in this way, I can't ever picture such contact as being incidental.

The slow whistle in basketball is crucial because of the Tower principle (advantage/disadvantage) that is actually part of the written language of the rules and interpretations of basketball. Football has similar language, as do hockey and soccer. There are even instances on the baseball field where contact is incidental (or a trainwreck). This isn't one of them.

Making the call after the infielder's throw is launched into the seats would've resulted in as lengthy of an argument -- from the other manager, of course.

--Rich

We all know that obstruction was once an immediate dead ball. Then some rules committee decided one day that a delayed dead ball would be wiser. Why not a delayed dead ball with interference? A lot of umpires already do it. Umpires I know -- possibly even myself -- would've just let the play go. Even one umpire at least had the confidence in himself to admit as much right here in this thread. So I guess I can't understand why folks think I'm coming from left field on this one.

Gee said, "Jim. You surprise me. In this type of interference there is no delayed dead ball and there is no incidental contact when the runner makes contact with the fielder when he is in the act of fielding a ball. You see contact, you kill it, right by the numbers."

Gee, I wasn't aware contact was illegal. The last time I checked the definition of interference contact wasn't even mentioned. Instead words like, "interferes with," and, "obstructs," and "impedes," and, "hinders," are mentioned. Since when does contact alone automatically mean interference? And how can any umpire possibly know whether a fielder has been impeded, obstructed, hindered, or interfered with in his attempt to make a play if play is killed before an attempt is even made?

Jim;

I interpreted you initial post a little differently so I'll respond along those lines.

More than half of all umpires I know, would not make the call initially. Only half of the remaining umpires would make the call if the ball was thrown away. Perhaps 20% of umpires would make the immediately just like the MLB umpire did.

I am one of those 20%. My philosophy is to jump on an out when I can get it. We get paid to make the tough calls and I like outs.

I find that it is simpler to call the game by the rules unless neither team expects the call. In this case, I have to make a decision as to whether I want to have a heated discussion with the offense or defensive coach. In this case, I feel on much firmer ground arguing that it should be an out. The strict reading of the rulebook backs me up.

Peter

Jim,

There are several ways that a runner can interfere with a fielder. Some are called incidental contact, some are overlooked and others are not even considered, especially by MLU's.

But when you clearly see a runner actually make contact with a fielder who is protected and positioning himself to field the ball I see no alternative but to kill the play. If for no other reason, self preservation.

I realize that contact is not needed but it sure adds a whole bunch to the calling umpires position.

It seems your main point in not calling it was to avoid a confrontation with Franco. Do you really think that BIG LOU would have just sat there in the dugout blowing bubbles and watch that run score? Not in your life.

When they change the rules and allow a delayed interference call on this play I'll do it but until that time I've got a golden out. G.

---------------------------------------------

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the umpire hadn't called interference and the play was allowed to stand not another word would've been said about it by anyone -- not Lou Piniella, not anyone. It was a routine-looking play interrupted by a surprise interference call. I'd even be willing to bet Lou Piniella didn't even know R2 and F5 had made contact. It required slow motion replay just to see it on television even with a favorable camera angle.

In the men's amateur, Legion, Sunset, MSBL, and other adult leagues here in Rhode Island, interference on that play absolutely would've been completely unexpected by both sides. I further believe, depending on the offensive coach, making that interference call would be to invite misery on oneself. Making that kind of call on such a routine-looking play here would lead to a long and ugly confrontation, and paperwork after the game.

I'm not afraid of making the tough calls, and I'm not afraid of confrontation. But I also like to achieve a balance between interjecting myself into the game with an unexpected call, versus allowing the game to be what the participants want and expect. I think many of us do that, and I think this is one area where it comes into play.

Jim Porter wrote:

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the umpire hadn't called interference and the play was allowed to stand not another word would've been said about it by anyone -- not Lou Piniella, not anyone. It was a routine-looking play interrupted by a surprise interference call. I'd even be willing to bet Lou Piniella didn't even know R2 and F5 had made contact. It required slow motion replay just to see it on television even with a favorable camera angle.
__________________

Maybe Big Lou didn't see exactly what happened but when I saw the live play it was obvious something was amiss.

I didn't see the contact but I did see Damons right shoulder point to second base. Darling saw it point blank and called it. Do you really think that Upton, the SS, would have just stood by and let it go. You know how Big Lou thinks about that. Good call Gary. G.

In the past.......
 

Intereference is a freaking no-brainer. OBR code makes it that way, what is this hulabaloo bout? Porters refereence that it is not called in his MSBL? Funny, we got some old time pro's in ours.....kick and scream if it aint called. Guess different strokes...........

Re: In the past.......
 

I've had guys in MSBL throw hissy fits at me because I called an out when F3 tagged the base with his glove instead of his foot. But we also have a number of former Major Leaguers in our MSBL program, too. Some are recognizable names. Of course, our MSBL program has three age divisions, so we have all kinds of folks playing. I don't think a single one of them would've thought there was interference on that play.

Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that the game would've gone on without a single mention of the contact. There truly was no interference, only contact. The play was made unimpeded. F5 didn't lose a step. The out was made at first. Where is there something to complain about for anyone?

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 13th, 2004 at 11:08 PM]

Re: Re: In the past.......
 

All this would be wonderful if interference was truly called this way, but it isn't.

Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Oh, sure it is. You heard Peter's estimate. A couple of us have even admitted it on this board. So, right or wrong, it is being called that way. Amateur umpires everywhere are creating their own kind of delayed dead ball to see if contact is merely incidental or if it truly interferes with the fielder's attempt to make a play.

You can get away with a slight delay because seldom is the initial interference call heard over the excitement of a play anyway. So you just kill play as soon as you know whether the fielder was interfered with or not -- usually a second or so after the contact -- not much time at all.

I'm not trying to muddy any waters. I know very well how interference is called and enforced. I just wanted to discuss how many umpires aren't doing it by the book, and whether how they are doing it is actually a good idea -- because I actually think it is.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 14th, 2004 at 01:29 AM]

I just wanted to add that I appreciated Peter's response a great deal. It was quite honest. He said his philosophy is to jump on an out when he can get it. That philosophy is one our high school association employs. As our Umpire-in-Chief always says, "We are to assist the defense whenever possible."

Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~


I see your point, Jim. Kinda like having DPI in football, "hey offence, ya wanna take the penalty or decline it?" This would just create problems, IMHO. Lots of umps have problems with type B obs, now we have type B int. Although int is a bit easier enforcement than obs for some. We had this one ump this past season for my kids 9-10's. You know those F3's that stare at the ball heading for the gap and just stand on the bag, obstruct BR? This guy would automatically add a bag to where they ended up, so he'd tell us to keep em running, kid would get thrown out by 20 feet at third, he would give em the bag. THAT was frustrating!!!

Jim, I certainly see your point and it's a valid point in some situations that could be called incidental contact.

In my opinion this wasn't one of them. The reason being is that the contact was a mini-second before upton got to the ball. Too close for me.

Peter is fortunate WW isn't around as he would have questioned the authenticity of the "POLL" especially since there was no +/-. G.

Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

I think that calling it any other way than the way it is written in the book is wrong.

Here's why:

The rule states the runner has interfered if "he fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball..."

Since the rule states that the runner must avoid contact, any contact, however slight, is against the rules. It should always be called because the runner is trying to gain an advantage for the offense by running as close as possible to the fielder, with out actually contacting him, to try and disrupt his attempt at fielding the ball. Either that or they just don't know or care about the rule, but in any case, the result is a legal attempt at interference without actually interfering (by making contact).

Since there is a definite advantage gained by coming close to a fielder, there should be a resulting penalty if contact is actually made.

In certain cases, I am for the advantage theory in not making certain calls. This is not one of them. If contact is made, the resulting penalty keeps the runners at their last legally aquired base at the time of interference. In the game in question, if the contact, however slight, was ignored then you just allowed the run to score when it should not have. Since contact was made, the penalty should be enforced and the R3 should remain at third.

The runners remaining on their base is a key point. The onus is on the runners to avoid fielders making plays. If they don't, they should receive the appropriate penalty of the out and the runners remaining where they were at the TOI.

There is no provision in the rule for incidental contact, nor should there be since there can be an advantage gained by just coming close.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Certainly, there can be interference without contact. Just coming close all by itself can be considered interference if the runner impeded the fielder's attempt to make a play. But you don't subscribe to the notion that there can be contact but no interference?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread.

Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change.

The rules as currently written are clear and unambiguous. The runner must avoid the fielder, period. If he does not, ie. he makes contact with the fielder, he has interfered.

I think this makes our jobs easier. If there is contact, it is interference. Kill the play, enforce the penalty. And it is an easy explanation to the coach. Basically, contact=interference. He may not like it, but thems' the rules.

Anyone who enforces this rule differently makes another umpires life difficult if they get the same play afterwards.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Kaliix: I'm on Jim's side that minimal contact doesn't <i>prove</i> interference. All "The Book" says is: "It is interference by a ... runner when: He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." "To avoid" is not really that "clear or unambiguous."

But I'm interested in a much more important point. In light of today's political environment, I insist that the rules be re-written to say that the runner is out when "he or she" fails to avoid a fielder...."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Kaliix: I'm on Jim's side that minimal contact doesn't <i>prove</i> interference. All "The Book" says is: "It is interference by a ... runner when: He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." "To avoid" is not really that "clear or unambiguous." But I'm interested in a much more important point. In light of today's political environment, I insist that the rules be re-written to say that the runner is out when "he or she" fails to avoid a fielder...."

Exactly right. One has to imply the passage is telling us that the runner must avoid contact with a fielder. But it is also possible that it is the fielder's attempt to field a batted ball that must be avoided by the runner. Indeed, even Rule 2.00 would further suggest that it is the fielder's attempt to make a play that must be avoided by the very definition of interference itself.

As far as the other issue, I've always fancied using, "he," as a generic pronoun meaning either sex (or what-have-you) and I believe it is appropriate and preferred. But what do I know? I could be a sexist pig.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 19th, 2004 at 07:44 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Fair enough:

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition:
Avoid v.t. 1. to keep away from; keep clear of.

The defintion of avoid, applied to our circumstance, means that the runner must keep clear of or away from the fielder. That would mean that by touching the fielder, the runner has failed to keep clear of or away from the fielder. If the runner did, then he could not have made contact with fielder.

Hence avoid means no contact. Therefore contact=interference.

Kill the play, enforce the penalty and in the case of the original play in this thread, keep the run from scoring.

I feel the whole "whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball" argument is misleading. Interference is defined in numerous ways in the rules. Some of them may not involve plays in which the actions defined in the rules result in actual interference, meaning that they impacted and altered the play. But they are still interference and should still be called.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix

Quote:

Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread. Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change.

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me.

Originally posted by Kaliix

Quote:

Fair enough: From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition: Avoid v.t. 1. to keep away from; keep clear of. The defintion of avoid, applied to our circumstance, means that the runner must keep clear of or away from the fielder. That would mean that by touching the fielder, the runner has failed to keep clear of or away from the fielder. If the runner did, then he could not have made contact with fielder. Hence avoid means no contact. Therefore contact=interference. Kill the play, enforce the penalty and in the case of the original play in this thread, keep the run from scoring. I feel the whole "whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball" argument is misleading. Interference is defined in numerous ways in the rules. Some of them may not involve plays in which the actions defined in the rules result in actual interference, meaning that they impacted and altered the play. But they are still interference and should still be called.

No, that's not what Jim was saying. He was asking you to cite some section in the <i>rule book</i> that indicates in "clear and unambiguous" terms that "contact" is automatially "interference." A dictionary won't help.

The J/R emphasizes that certain acts of "brushing" a fielder create situations in which "contact is probably incidental." These include "bumping" or "brushing" a fielder before a fly ball has reached its apex, or a fielder positioning himself to field a ball rolling along a foul line. Still, blatant interference that prevented a fielder from fielding a ball would apply even in these cases.

(Of course, there's also the incidental nature of the batter-runner's contact with the catcher as the B-R starts toward 1B and the catcher moves out to field a ball. And the exception when the "runner is touching his base when the <i>contact</i> occurs.")

The implication is that "bumping" or "brushing" a fielder in other situations is interference.

Otherwise, J/R seems to equate "contacts a fielder" with "interferes with a fielder" (attempting to field a batted ball). There is nothing concerning "incidental contact" except what I noted above. There is also nothing about play proceeding normally after the interference.

It does seem unfair that the defense can lose an easy double play unless the interference is intentional. Perhaps there are some plays in which interference should be treated as a DDB: Abel on 2B, Baker on 1B, Charles grounds to F6, who is run into by Abel. But F6 fields the ball anyway, tags Abel, then throws to F4 who relays to 1B for the triple play. The INT call will be tough on the defense.

I realize it's a fine line we're walking. I just can't fathom why no source -- official or authoritative -- has ever put it so simply. Instead, we've got words to consider like interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders, and confuses. I mean, that is the very definition of the word interference, isn't it? There's nothing about simple inconsequential contact where the fielder remains unhampered and unhindered. Even the Jaksa/Roder reference seems to go to great lengths to avoid committing to simple contact as interference, and one must imply by absence in order to know how they rule properly. Something doesn't seem right to me about that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Papa C.
The rule in question 7.09 states that, "It IS interference by a batter or a runner when (l)He FAILS TO AVOID a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,..."

Since the crux of the definition is the term "FAILS TO AVOID" and I have unambiguously defined avoid as "to keep away from or keep clear of" then I can say with complete confidence that a runner, who makes contact with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball, has met the definition of "failing to AVOID" by making contact with the fielder.

It is not a stretch or a leap of logic that I am making here. Failing to avoid means making contact. Since the rule states that it IS interference if the runner fails to avoid then, quite simply, contact=interference.

I fail to see how that logic is unclear?

If you think it is, please show me where? :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaliix Quote: Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread. Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change. Originally posted by Jim Porter Quote: So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me. Originally posted by Kaliix Quote: Fair enough: From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition: Avoid v.t. 1. to keep away from; keep clear of. The defintion of avoid, applied to our circumstance, means that the runner must keep clear of or away from the fielder. That would mean that by touching the fielder, the runner has failed to keep clear of or away from the fielder. If the runner did, then he could not have made contact with fielder. Hence avoid means no contact. Therefore contact=interference. Kill the play, enforce the penalty and in the case of the original play in this thread, keep the run from scoring. I feel the whole "whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball" argument is misleading. Interference is defined in numerous ways in the rules. Some of them may not involve plays in which the actions defined in the rules result in actual interference, meaning that they impacted and altered the play. But they are still interference and should still be called.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In the past.......
 

Kaliix:

I'm not arguing that failure to avoid is NOT interference. Your logic and definitions are fine.

Alls [sic] we're saying is:

Why hasn't somebody of note (grin), other than you, said it like you?

Where in the book does it say that "contact, however slight, is interference"? It ain't there.

Where is a statement from J/R, Jim Evans, Carl Childress (another grin) that says "contact, however slight, is interference"? You won't find it put in "clear and unambiguous" terms.

Likely you're right; most umpires would agree with you -- in print. Jim asked (and the only one who answered was Peter Osborne) how many umpires would have a "delayed whistle" on that play. Jim believes that more umpires wait a moment than admit it. Likely <i>he's</i> right about that.

But then I believe we've also agreed that some contact is incidental: "That's nothing!" We just have to define where and when that occurs.

The bottom line, and I'll bow out of this thread now, is that "on paper" it's quite clear via (your) logic if not by rule. But we also know a lot of umpires don't call batter interference when B1's "natural momentum" on the swing carries his body over the plate when the catcher is trying to throw out a runner stealing second.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
Papa C.
The rule in question 7.09 states that, "It IS interference by a batter or a runner when (l)He FAILS TO AVOID a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball,..."

Since the crux of the definition is the term "FAILS TO AVOID" and I have unambiguously defined avoid as "to keep away from or keep clear of" then I can say with complete confidence that a runner, who makes contact with a fielder attempting to field a batter ball, has met the definition of "failing to AVOID" by making contact with the fielder.

It is not a stretch or a leap of logic that I am making here. Failing to avoid means making contact. Since the rule states that it IS interference if the runner fails to avoid then, quite simply, contact=interference.

I fail to see how that logic is unclear?

If you think it is, please show me where? :)

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: Originally posted by Kaliix Quote: Is it possible to have contact and no interference? Sure, it's possible and that is what in fact seemed to have happened on the play described in this thread. Unfortunately, that would involve some sort of delayed interference/play-on-advantage theory type rule which is not yet a rule covering interference. That may be something that could be investigated as a rules change. Originally posted by Jim Porter Quote: So, then, you're saying the proper course of action is to call interference on mere contact whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball? And you're saying that's clear and unambiguous? Show me. Originally posted by Kaliix Quote: Fair enough: From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition: Avoid v.t. 1. to keep away from; keep clear of. The defintion of avoid, applied to our circumstance, means that the runner must keep clear of or away from the fielder. That would mean that by touching the fielder, the runner has failed to keep clear of or away from the fielder. If the runner did, then he could not have made contact with fielder. Hence avoid means no contact. Therefore contact=interference. Kill the play, enforce the penalty and in the case of the original play in this thread, keep the run from scoring. I feel the whole "whether or not it actually interfered with a fielder's attempt to field the ball" argument is misleading. Interference is defined in numerous ways in the rules. Some of them may not involve plays in which the actions defined in the rules result in actual interference, meaning that they impacted and altered the play. But they are still interference and should still be called. Quote: No, that's not what Jim was saying. He was asking you to cite some section in the <i>rule book</i> that indicates in "clear and unambiguous" terms that "contact" is automatially "interference." A dictionary won't help.

Turning things the other way for a moment: Has anyone ever seen a runner called for INT on a batted ball in a MLB game where there was <i>not</i> contact?

Not that this proves anything in particular. Like most of us, I've seen uncountable MLB games, but those few instances of INT I've seen have always involved contact.

I saw one several years ago during a Red Sox game when former F5 John Valentin, running from second, intentionally screened a grounder to the shortstop.