Interference Situation 1
 

R1 on 3B, outs not important, left handed batter, I'm BU. There is a pitch in the dirt, blocked by F2, that rolls a few feet to her right. R1 breaks for home as F2 starts after the ball, which has rolled behind the batter. The batter backs away from the plate and in doing so slightly kicks the ball with her heel. The ball rolls a few feet further away from F2, giving R1 time to safely reach home (close play but obviously safe). Maybe this is a HTBT, but my questions are:

1. Would you call interference on this play?
2. Would you call interference on this play as the BU?

I asked my partner about this during our post game and he stated he saw the kick but in his mind it was not intentional so he did not call interference. I reminded him that intent is not required and the light bulb went off in his head. From my vantage point, I saw he was clearly in position to see what happened so I was hesitant to make a call from C2. Defensive coach came out to ask about the play but did not raise a fuss. Game was a blowout (18-0 final score) so this play had no bearing on the outcome, but we would both like to know how we should have ruled. First time I ever worked with a junior partner!

ASA: I would absolutely consider this INT. I don't think there is any doubt about it.

I'm not sure I would have jumped on PU's call on this, I'll have to consider that.

Probably the best thing to do is talk over the call and see if I have any input he may consider to make the call himself. I'd be interested in others thoughts on this aspect of the call.

Speaking ASA

This is INT, old or new rules, makes no difference. As the BU, I would only call it if I believe my partner did not see the kick due to his/her vision being blocked by the catcher or batter, or not even looking at the time.

Agree. This is clearer by the new wording, but should have been judged interference by the old wording. It is clear that the action resulted in hindering the defense's opportunity to make the play.

Only make the original call if I think PU did not see it at all, not if he saw it and misapplied or misjudged. When/if we conference about it, I am absolutely telling PU that is interference, and to amke the call.

Under ASA"s new interference rule you must kill the play and call interference. Intent no longer matters and you must protect the defense's right to make a play on the runner.

Do we have to do this again? Ugh. I'm not taking the bait ... are you guys?

To answer the OP:
1. Heck yes, without hesitation (TY or LY)
2. If I'm POSITIVE of what I saw, and also sure that PU couldn't have seen the kick, then yes. Any umpire can call OBS or INT - this is not poaching a call. Now ... if PU saw it and didn't call it, I'm assuming my PU saw something I didn't (and definitely discussing it later).

Yeah, I'll take the bait. Intent was never required for INT in this scenario.

2006/2007 ASA 7.6.S Interfering with a play at the plate. Kicking the ball away from the catcher with a runner attempting to score satisfies this interference rule.