Avoiding an obstructing defender

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

I think what Irish is getting at is that the if the new rule is added, an out will be the penalty for the collision. If there is INT, of course we call the out for INT. But if there is no play, we can still impose a penalty of an out for the collision.

I know what he said. But, for years 8-7Q has been an interference rule. It is an interference rule. The call against the runner who violates the rule is interference.

If possession is not required for the out, then other adjustments need to be made.

Either change the definition of interference.

Or change the definition of a play.

Or they willl need to change the interpretation of the rule as an interference rule. Interpretations cited above.