inteference by batter or not?

[Roger Greene]

Our old discussion entitled "whats the call?" from 9/4 (www.officialforum.com/thread/2875) never really came to a satisfactory conclussion. At least I've been troubled by it.

NHFS does have a case play that is on point. Situation 14 of 2001 NFHS Softball Rules Interpertations (www.nfhs.org/sports/softball_interp.htm)

R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. B3 out on strike 3 (caught or uncaught) PU declares B3 out immediately, but B3 runs toward 1st within the running lane and is hit by F2's throw to F3. Ruling: Ball is live, what happens is what happens "UNLESS THE UMPIRE JUDGES .... THAT F2 WAS ATTEMPTING TO PICK OFF R2, IN WHICH CASE INTEFERENCE COULD BE CALLED."

I think this justifies my suggestion of the correct call of batter inteference for the orginizations I call for. (I don't think any of them have the case plays described for ASA that indicate the retired batter cannot interfer just by running to first.) I'm still not totaly convinced that the ASA plays quoted spoke to anything other than an attempt to play on the retired batter.

Was a consensus ever reached?

Thanks,
Roger Greene,
Member UT