B/r int
 

R1 on 3rd, R2 on 1st, no out. B3 hits a lazy foul pop up 20' in the air and 5' to F2's right. R2 stealing on the pitch. PU clearly announces "CATCH", BR trots to a stop 40' up the line, and gets plugged with F2's attempt to double off R2.
What's the call? It is not relevant whether the (retired) BR was in the running lane, correct?

Unless the BR did something to cause the INT like turn into the throw or raise his/her arms, etc., I don't see a call to be made except DMC.

Did it look like intentional INT?

Out of curiosity, what difference would that make?

That's the point of my question... the way you phrased your statement, turning into the throw, while not intentional, is an act of interference. Is running up the line and coming to a stop at the place where the ball is, not an act that interfered?

Or do you mean that the "turn" and/or the "raise" must have been done to block the throw for it to be INT?

EDIT: Forget it... 8.7.P "intentionally".
Sorry for wasting your time...

Speaking ASA, 8.7.P does not make any statement as to intent. To the best of my knowledge, hasn't since 2006.

No, a non-action is not an act of interference. Here is a play ASA has used in tests and clinics to give folks an idea.

R1 is proceeding to 2B on a ground ball with a 6-4-3 double play possibility. F4 turns to relay the ball to F3 in an attempt to effect a 2nd out on the play.
a) throw hits R1 as s/he is advancing to 2B; b) R1 falls prior to F4's throw. As F4 proceeds to make the throw, R1 stands up and is hit by the throw.

In a, R1 did not commit an act of interference as s/he was simply advancing to the base to which s/he was forced. Live ball. Scenario b, R1 was already absent from a specific area where F4 was making the throw and by standing, R1 committed an act which interfered with the throw.

I don't know whether this is a direct quotation or a paraphrase. If it is a direct quotation, it is a dangerous statement. Though it might be intended to only apply to this specific scenario, using terminology such as "simply advancing to the base to which she was forced" could open up a pandora's box.

Whether, in my opinion, I agree with the interpretation, it is a terrible way to justify a call. I would almost expect it to come out of the mouth of a coach, not an ASA test creator.

Just curious, but how would you justify the No Interference call in (a) then?

It's a direct quote, although you removed the context. It's not meant to be a stand-alone quote.

That said ... in what way do you envision this opening Pandora's Box? If the runner (in the scenario we're talking about) is simply advancing, and doing nothing else, what circumstance could make you think INT was even remotely on the table?

I'm more worried with the NCAA interp opening up Pandora's Box.

Amen....

If you are referring to the word "forced", I used that in the context of the play to avoid the "but if he didn't have to run, doing so could be an act of interference" bullshit that comes around from the third-world sect.

I was going to mention that.....but I don't want to open a Pandora's Box.

Here, I'll open it. To support the allowance of an INT ruling when a runner gets hit with a thrown ball without that runner attempting to get hit, attempting to hit the ball or just do something stupid to interfere with the throw is an idiotic and cowardly interpretation.

You didn't.... NCAA blew up the box. :(