Situation #2

[rwest]

Originally Posted by SRW

...
I guess what it boils down to is that if "intentionally" was removed from 7.6.Q and from 8.2.F.3, then shouldn't it be removed from 7.6.R as well?

I asked this very question at our rules clinic and the answer was no, the rules committed intended to leave the word "intentionally" in 7.6.R. Therefore, intent is still required in some cases for interference. Now, we have just fewer instances were intent is required.

[AtlUmpSteve]

IMO, anytime two throws have been made, and there is now a play at the plate, if the batter (who has the option of any exit in all possible 360 degrees and at any distance, and plenty of time to react) interferes with the play, it was intentional. We can still judge the result, and determine intent.