Strange interference

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oppool
R1 on 2nd and R2 on 1st no outs, B3 hits grounder to F4 who flips to F6 for the force at 2nd, F6 throws to F3 trying for the double play which is late but F3 sees R1 make wide turn at 3rd throws to F5 during this time R2 who is out is trotting back to his 3rd base dugout, R1 who is pretty much a dead duck at this time trys to take off for home as F2 is setup at home to recieve the throw x-R2 who is not paying attention to the play crosses right in front of F2 causing F2 to lose vision of the throw causing the ball to get past F2 on which R1 proceeds to score and the B/R advances to 2nd.

Would you still rule this as not intentional interference or interference because by rules you have stated x-R2 did nothing intentional???

IMO, the meaning of the word intentional in the rules depends on context - in this case, the context of what has happened and what is happening.

To re-quote the rule (so everyone doesn't have to page back in this thread or dig out the book)..

ASA 8-8
THE RUNNER IS OUT.
P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner...

Was this runner in the heat of a play, where he deserved the benefit of the doubt (e.g. he can't just disappear)? No.

He knew the play was still on-going. He had the choice of many ways to return to his dugout, most of which would have taken him out of the way of the continuing action. His choice of route for returning to the dugout was intentional (i.e. not accidental) and he definitely interfered with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. I'd rule interference in this case.

I am very interested in hearing how others would rule on this play...