Interference and force out

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No citation, since I was asserting that is what it SHOULD be.
You did by saying that INT is not a force. Since INT is not a force, it can be used intentionally by the offense to convert what would be a force out into a timing play. And the issue is not "protecting" one team, but rather preventing one team from gaining an advantage by committing an infraction against the other team.

Dakota, I'm with you on this. (Though, SRW, if I'm calling for you, I'll remember which way you're going to rule if you have to come to my field.) But there are definitely rules where committing an infraction is to your advantage. Besides the ones we've mentioned, here's one from a while back on this board where everyone soundly pounded into my head the ruling. Ball in foul territory (not fly) that is clearly going to bound fair and be fielded for an out. BR should interfere with the fielder while the ball is still in foul ground.
________
Tasty_squirt

[SRW]

Originally Posted by youngump

Dakota, I'm with you on this. (Though, SRW, if I'm calling for you, I'll remember which way you're going to rule if you have to come to my field.) But there are definitely rules where committing an infraction is to your advantage. Besides the ones we've mentioned, here's one from a while back on this board where everyone soundly pounded into my head the ruling. Ball in foul territory (not fly) that is clearly going to bound fair and be fielded for an out. BR should interfere with the fielder while the ball is still in foul ground.

If you call for me knowing what I'll say, then why did you call for me?

[SRW]

I'm having a difficult time seeing how allowing the run to score is penalizing the defense (or conversely, rewarding the offense) because of the INT-Out. The only way we get tougher with INT is when it's INT by someone who is already out or not in the game (ODB), then we get the runner closest to home. But even with that situation (ODB INT), we would be allowing the run to score and calling out the runner closest to home... how is that theory any different in the OP? Even after reading a very good debate on this here (well done, guys!), I'm still leaning toward a non-force situation in the OP.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SRW

I'm having a difficult time seeing how allowing the run to score is penalizing the defense (or conversely, rewarding the offense) because of the INT-Out...

Because it scores a run that otherwise would not score.