Interference - Is intent Required?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Its the way I perceive some people will read the rule in spite of the punctuation...

Unfortunately, instead of being applied as an exclusion for being hit with a batted ball while on the base, I think some would cite or a fielder making a play as a complete and separate application as to a runner being in contact with the base instead of applying to being hit with a batted ball.

That's exactly what gave me pause on this one. As it's written, 8-8-M seems like two rules rolled into one: One rule about a runner being hit by a batted ball while in contact with a base and another rule about a runner in contact with the base interfereing with a fielder making a play. By "merging" these two separate scenarios, it does seem to make the rule less clear.

Apparently, both the umpire making this call and the protest committee reviewing the protest consider "a fielder making a play" as a "complete and separate application".

The poster asked the question: "Is there a rule in existence that would justify this call?" If there is, then it's got to be this one.

Personally, my own sense of the "spirit and intent" of the rules would call the runner out for interference and the batter-runner out because the interference prevented a catch. But I don't like to base rulings on "my own personal sense of right and wrong". I like to base them on actual rules and interpretations. The only problem here is that the rule that seems to apply isn't 100% clear in its intent.