Interference Question

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

Did the retired BR do this?

Minus the contact with the ball by the retired BR, would F3 had been able to retrieve the dropped ball and been able to make a play on R1?

My real question is this: Is the act alone enough to call interference or do we also have to consider what would have probably happened minus the act?

You raise a valid point, but I think we need to use caution (and the value of our greater experience) before stressing that condition. I fear (and believe that I have seen and heard) way too many umpires would attempt to use that rationale to refuse to make the call that needs to be made. And I know you well enough to believe we have a similar approach on the ball field.

Yes, correct, both this specific rule, and the basic definition of interference require that there be an opportunity to make a possible play for there to be interference. We have to NOT be looking for a sure-fire out in front of us, we have to consider that if there is any reasonable chance that a play COULD be made, then we must give the benefit of the doubt to the defense, and declare the interference.

We CANNOT use this to consider that the batter-runner didn't know she was out, or that she didn't mean to interfere, or the always useless "she was just doing what she was supposed to" until she knows she is out baloney, or whatever other justification we want to use to not make the call.