If it is INT, it is a dead ball. If you didn't rule the ball dead at the time of the INT, how can you possibly have INT without admitting you were inappropriately delaying the call hence a misapplication.

ASA is consistent with their rules as it pertains to any INT call on any team personnel, the ball is dead, period. Not applying that effect to the call, IMO, is a misapplication or misinterpretation of the rule, not a judgment call.

Sure but to have INT there has to be an opportunity for an out that the defense has been deprived of, right?

Speaking ASA, no. Just the opportunity to execute a play.

Now a play is an attempt by the defense to retire an offensive player. THAT would require the possibility of an out, but any benefit of doubt must go to the defense's ability.

OK..I think we agree but you are using a lot more words. So a fielder running toward foul ground who is hindered by a runner is not "making a play" if she is running after a foul fly ball that is going to land in DBT. Ditto for a fly ball to the outfield that an infielder is running after but will never reach hindered or not.

But if there is any possibility of the hindered defensive player making a play then INT. Sure.

So there is a judgement to be made by the umpire. Is there a possibility of an out or not?

All I am saying is it could take a beat or two after the runner hinders the fielder before I can decide if there was the possibility of an out when a runner hinders a fielder who may be attempting to catch a fair batted ball.

As soon as I have that it is a dead ball. Not DDB. Any I would submit that my small (probably not even noticed) pause is not a misinterp of the rules which could be protested.

Maybe I should put it this way, and we probably do agree. I'm not suggesting that the call be made immediately upon seeing some action which may be INT, but when you do see something that could be INT, you do need to find the ball and make a decision then. IOW, if it was INT, you are not waiting to see what unfolds in front of you before deciding to call or apply the penalty.

what would the proper mechanic be after calling interference seeing the ball drop on the other side of the fence with no possibility of a catch. one of those high pop ups that may or may not land on the opposite side of the fence but evenyually does?

So much of the stuff we note on paper/computer screen can be read and processed damn near instantaneously. However, real world umpiring doesn't happen that way. You see a play, your eyes tell your mind what you saw, the brain processes the image and instructs your mouth and other muscles how to act. It may seem like it happens as quickly, but it really doesn't.

We talk about plays like you are seeing, thinking, calling and signaling them all at the same time. Not only does it not happen instantaneously, but when it seems that it is that quick, it is quite possible the umpire anticipated the call. Don't know how many times I've heard or said in a clinic or school that an umpire doesn't get extra points for speed. Common advice to rookie umpires is to slow down. We teach them to anticipate plays, but never anticipate the call.

On the foul ball, you are just killing the play. I would think by the time you lowered your arms, you would have a pretty good idea of whether the fielder would have had the opportunity to make a play on it.

And remember (and before someone brings it up) if another player has the opportunity to make the play, it isn't INT on the player who was hindered, so then you don't kill the ball.