That's different. That's merely interference by a runner during an.....wait a minute! It's exactly the same! :D

It took me about 10 seconds to realize that the inning was over. I called the interference and realized a second later we were dealing with an infield fly. The question I'd like to ask the acquaintance is why he would ignore the infield fly -- that batter is out, by rule, when that fair fly ball is hit.

No provision of the rules permits ignoring an IFF. If you were going to ignore something here, it would be the INT, on the grounds that the defense wasn't really "hindered."

I don't accept that argument, but there's more room for reasonable people to disagree.

I don't even buy that one as being reasonable. The fielder almost went a$$ over teakettle due to the interference and made a last second lunging catch of the ball. It was just as likely he'd miss the catch and kick the ball away.

I'm certainly not waiting and then applying interference retroactively. Interference is an immediate dead ball. A collision with a protected fielder is almost certainly interference.

Besides, that wouldn't have changed anything. The offensive coach argued that because the fielder came from behind, "what's my guy supposed to do? That's not interference! He's in the baseline where he's supposed to be!" Sigh.