Did the rule book editors forget this one?

[Dakota]

With all due respect (and it is considerable), you guys (Mike and Steve) are rationalizing, it seems to me.

The phrase at issue in 8-7Q is

or is about to catch a thrown ball,

not the entire rule.

Second, the rule says nothing about USC, but is declaring the runner out for interference. You are reading USC into the rule. It isn't there. The rule covers every collision, not just the flagrant ones.

Further, POE 13, dealing with this specific scenario, limits the OUT call to a fielder with possession of the ball. POE 13 makes a distinction between merely remaining upright and crashing and a flagrant crash (USC). I can accept the ASA case book interp that a flagrant act of USC also results in an out, but that out is due to the flagrant USC, not due to interference.

POE 13F also states quite clearly that if everything arrives simultaneously, it is neither OBS nor INT.

How can you possibly have INT and OBS on the same physical contact between the same two players? That seems to be what you are arguing.

To wit: "It would be OBS since the fielder does not have possession, but since the runner remained upright, it is interference, since the fielder was about to catch the thrown ball."

Boy, is that convoluted.

Again, if the crash is flagrant, then using the case play for authority, the runner is out for flagrant misconduct. But not for interference.

Again, again.... I am only talking about the case where the fielder "is about to catch a thrown ball."