Interference - Is intent Required?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by ACES Coach

Is there ever a case where interference would not lead to at least one out?

The call on this play was "no call". The score at the time was 8-7 in a championship game at the "A" level. The umpire stated that the interference was not "intentional", so both runners were safe. The call was then protested by the coach stating that the interference does not need to be "intentional" to be called. The protest committee also determined that since the runner was on the bag at the time of contact and that the contact was not "intentional", then this was considered incidental contact and "no call".

It is beyond my comprehension how an infielder waiting to catch a ball can be contacted (in the face and actually drawing blood) by a runner and the fact that the runners foot is touching the base results in a no call. Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?

Interference is a judgement call. In their judgement the contact was incidental...hence they ruled no interference. R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. Play on.
You obviously disagree with their judgement, but it's a judgement call as so many calls are...balls, strikes, safe, out, fair, foul etc.
Remember, it was posted earlier that most "was this interference?" sitchs that are posted are HTBT type plays.
BTW....how was a protest allowed to be lodged on a judgement call?