You want a real play...here

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by DG
I never said a collision must occur in order for interference to be called.

You said a fielder who quits on a ball in order to avoid a runner should not get an interference call, and the logical interpretation of that statement is that the fielder would have to continue on and run into the runner, in order to get the interference call from you.

A fielder who inexplicably quits on a ball, I would agree does not deserve an interference call just because a runner is in the vicinity. But if the fielder clearly alters his path - including stopping in his tracks - because a runner's path is blocking the fielder's path to the ball, then that is interference and should be called.

If you wish to replace "to avoid a runner" with "inexplicably" in your statement, then I will agree with you. If you insist on including the condition "to avoid a runner," then I continue to insist you are wrong.