Intent/Letter of the law: Interference

[Patrick Szalapski]

I think the recent/continuing thread regarding a batter's backswing illustrates one of the problems in how interference interpretations are learned/taught. When I was first learning the intracacies of the rules, I thought I understood that there's no interference unless the act by a offensive player "hinders...any fielder attempting to make a PLAY" (OBR 2.00). Take a look:

• "It ain't [strong] interference unless the offensive player hinders a PLAY."
  
• "A PLAY is usually defined as 'a legitmate attempt to retire a runner.'"

Put those together, and I thought I had it.

SITUATION: Bases empty, BR hits one to the gap; he slides in well ahead of the tag, but resents the force with which the pointless tag is applied. He slaps the fielders glove, causing the ball to drop out. The fielder picks up the ball and looks at the runner funny.

RULING, by above principles: Well, there was no chance to retire any runners. Let's call it weak "interference": call time, warn the runner.

SITUATION: Same as above, but instead the force of the slap sends the ball into shallow centerfield. The runner gets up and feints toward third, but thinks better of it and stays at second.

RULING: This isn't really different than the first sitch, right? Same call.

SITUATUION: Same as above, but instead the force of the slap sends the ball fairly far into right field, allowing the runner to easily gain third base.

RULING: Again, this is the same as the above, right? His action didn't hinder a play, it just helped him advance. We'll have to send the runner back, of course, but no further penalty.
========================
To be honest, I never accepted the last interpretation, but you see how that logic goes. We could easily have umpires accepting the above interpretations to one degree or another. My point is that one or both of the BLANKET STATEMENTS in bullet points above are not ALWAYS true. We, the umpiring body, need a better statement of the intent of the interference rules or, perhaps, the EFFECT of the rules. Those bulleted points above served that purpose, but in too broad of a scope.

To be honest, I see interference rules to be tougher than obstruction rules. Obstruction is pretty clear from the letter of the law/interpretation. It's a lot to digest, but once it gets through, it's easy. However, interference is far more cloudy.

Any thoughts?

P-Sz