When I'm Wrong, I'm wrong: Interference is better without intent

[Andy]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

SITUATION 1: With no outs and R1 on 2B, B2 swings at and misses the pitch. R1 breaks for 3B and while F2 is throwing to 3B in an attempt to retire R1, B2, while remaining in the batter’s box, backs up to readjust their footing and bumps into F2 causing an errant throw. RULING: B2 is guilty of interference. The ball is dead, B2 is out and R1 must return to 2B. (Rule 7, Section 6 Q)

With this being posted on the ASA web site, I have a different call between 2006 and 2007.

I don't like the new call, but it is not consistent with "The calls should not be different, just better worded."

Tony - Are you saying that you would not have called interference on the batter under the 2006 rule? As I picture this play, the batter intentionally moved in the batter's box and interferred with the catcher's throw. She may not have meant to interfere with the catcher, but her intentional movement did cause interference. I've got an interference call under 2006 and 2007 rules.