Interference, or no? How many outs?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

In other words, while legally sliding and making contact, intent is required, not just hindering the fielder. In other cases, the act of hindering/impeding/confusing is enough to rule INT, even without contact or intent.

It's not 100% logically consistent, and it's not the way I previously interpreted the rule, but I can live with this interpretation. This philosophy also answers my question about the non-contact INT scenarios, too.

Not necessarily intent, but an act of INT. An example offered in 2007 UIC Clinic after ASA removed "intent" from most of the INT rule included a runner going from 1st to 2nd on a ground ball in the infield and F4 relaying a throw to get the back end of a deuce. In scenario A, the advancing runner, maintaining his path, was hit by the throw. In scenario B, the advancing runner fell and then stood up and was hit by the throw.

In scenario A, the ruling was a live ball, play on. The runner as simply attempting to advance as is expected. Just because F4 put out that runner, we cannot expect the retired runner to just disappear. In scenario B, the ruling was INT as the retired runner was no longer attempting to advance and the area was clear for F4 to attempt the put out at 1B. Once down, the retired runner has a duty to avoid interfering with any further play.

Also, the thought of veering left or right would be an act of INT should the retired runner and defender not guess which way the other was going. If the retired runner stays the course, the defense will know exactly where to not throw the ball to get the out at 1B. Basically the same parameter used at the plate so the catcher knows, in advance, where s/he needs to throw the ball in response to an attempt to steal 3B