Interference - Is intent Required?

[BretMan]

There seems to be some circular reasoning or problem with semantics going on here.

You can't rule "unintentional interference". It is either interference or it is not. If the umpire thinks that the act did not meet the definition of interference, then he shouldn't rule interference. If he thinks it did, then there are penalties to apply (in this case, at least one and possibly two outs).

If he thinks that rule 8-8-M means that interference by a runner in contact with a base must be an intentional act, and he judges whatever the runner did wasn't intentional, then there was no interference on the play- not "interference, but we ignore it" or "interference without a penalty".

So I don't really get "there was interference on the play, but it wasn't intentional" as a good explanation of the call. What this would really have to mean would be "there was contact on the play, but it was not interference".