Of whom are you speaking? I don't know who would ever do such a thing!

Very good! I used to have a who/whom test. I'll see if I can find it.

How is B different from A?

In your situation, the runner remained upright to interfere, not to reach the bag (at least as I picture your play). And getting entangled with the fielder is different from simply getting hit by a throw. You can't read the runner's mind, but on a play like that, you don't have to. It's like sliding so far from the bag that you can't reach it with hand or foot.

MLB is getting stricter at 2B and would probably rule INT on that too, even though they seldom if ever called it in the "old days." The unwritten rule used to be that anything went except that you couldn't reach out and hit the ball, grab the fielder with your hands, or raise your arms to block the fielder's vision. Of course, back when men were men, the fielder would have drilled the offending runner with the throw, too. There were a lot of unofficial rules that were not in the book but were still enforced—not by the umpires, but by the players. Even today, deliberate and even unnecessary crashes at home plate are not cause for ejection. But something's going to happen later.

I've noticed the opposite in my softball experience.

You're right, Stat-Man. The people who don't know anything at all call everything "interference." The people who know that "obstruction" is a rule book term but don't know much beyond that will use it in an attempt to sound knowledgeable. Just as the truly illiterate will say that "me and him went to the game," the slightly literate will say that there was "a disagreement between he and I."

My particular two peeves of the moment:

The police found the victim laying on the side of the road.
He passed last night.

Had a very similar issue during a coed rec game. Bear in mind, Utrip kept the wording that ASA used to have in regards to the defense being in position to receive the throw and blocking the bag. Runner going into 3B slides, right into F5 who was waiting for the throw, which was on its way and the ball was almost to his glove. I had a tag-out. Next thing I know, the offensive manager was yelling "interference!" I said, "No maam, it was not obstruction." She looks at me and asked how it couldn't be interference. I said "your runner didn't commit interference, and the defense didn't commit obstruction because he was in position for the ball which was on its way." The look on the offensive players' faces were a combination of: :confused::confused::mad::confused::confused::eek: :confused::confused: Interesting night it was.

Thanks. I saw it as trying to beat the play and just not sliding (lack of skill or confidence), not intent to interfere.

In fairness to your original call, CecilOne, the book clearly says that "runners are never required to slide." If it appeared to you that the runner was making a legitimate attempt to reach 2B standing up, then you probably wouldn't have INT. If for example he beat the throw standing up, stopped on the bag, and merely stood on it, the fielder would then have to throw around him. But if he stayed up running so fast that he couldn't possibly have stopped on 2B—or if after being put out he ran upright into 2B, especially if he made contact with the fielder—he was trying to interfere. These are definitely HTBT plays.

Remember that the OP involved a runner nowhere near 2B and committing no "act."