Good point. There is know real rule to that effect. I was commenting on the Fisk/Armbrister play Rich Ives cited earlier.

The Fisk/Armbrister play illustrates tangle/untangle at the plate.

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called. “Obstruction” by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way” is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball.
__________________
Rich Ives

However, in a play like this, I have to see a real intent to INT or OBS before I call it. This to me is similar to a play, for example, when R2 is advancing to 3B while SS is playing the ball, SS may be blocked visually for a brief moment as R2 passes by and SS may muff the play as a result, but if the ball did not contact R2 and R2 did not make contact with SS and as long as I see no intent to interfier, then I got no call.

But that's not what the rules say. Intent (either INT or OBS) on this play is irrelevant. We are to judge whether the runner's actions interfered with the fielder, who has right of way on this play. If the runner did interfere, even without contact, it's INT. (And, I suppose, the opposite is true ... if the runner INTENDED to interfere but failed to do so, it's not INT). Contact makes it an easier call, most definitely ... but contact is not necessary, and making this call without contact, if the runner truly did interfere, is why they pay us.

I don't know what intent looks like, but I sure know what interference looks like.

As the runner passes he yell's "don't drop the ball" while waving his hands. That might be intent. Or from coach, "hey blue, he menat to do that. Are you blind"! lol ;)

Cant find a video, but my memory of Armbrister-Fisk play is that Armbrister hesitated, then advanced into Fisk.

Either way, not sure it was interference, call could have gone either way. Had it gone interference there would be at least as many who disagree, as not.

That is also interference, the 'intent' is irrelevant... LOL

I get the point, Bob. You convinced me. Interference is interference is interferecne.