INT at NC

[IRISHMAFIA]

F3 fielding a dribbler down 1st base line, it hits the heal of her glove and goes about 2 feet to her left as she is reaching for the ball BR contacts her right foot and spins her she had her hand on the ball when the contact was made, so in our judgement she still had the chance at an out (actually went ahead and threw it and did get the out if it would have continued on)....but we called the INT and sent runner back to 1st

Let's discuss Dave's protested call just for fun. Please note: I am not questioning the umpires' or UIC's call and interpretation. It was their judgment on the call and the UIC only addresses the interpretation, not the call.

F3 had the ball in her hand, so let's not even go to the OBS side, didn't exist.

However, did the BR's action actually interfere with F3?

F3 already had possession of the ball, so there is no INT with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. Based on the scenario above, the BR did not crash into F3. F3 was not about to make a tag or throw the ball at the time of the contact. So what part of 8.2.D-H is applied here?

How about 8.8.J? Again, the BR did not interfere with the fielder attempting to field a batted ball or throwing the ball, nor with the thrown ball itself. However, 8.8.J.4 addresses a deflected ball which this is. Problem there is that this is one place where intention was retained as part of the rule. From the scenario above, I do not see any intent indicated.

Now, for all you trainwreck fans, I would be more likely to allow this as a trainwreck than some of the other situations routinely offered usually involving OBS.

Any thoughts?