Totally agree if the foul fly was catchable with ordinary effort. But if the infielder could have possibly made a running over-the-shoulder catch if she had not been hindered, I just don't understand why ASA would state that the runner is not out in that case.

ASA makes no such assertion, but leaves it to the umpire's judgment.

And as I routinely point out in clinics, ASAs rules are often not of a punitive nature. Some of that is to avoid umpires from arbitrarily giving away outs like candy on Halloween. IOW, the possibility of an out needs to be of a very high percentage to be ruled.

Wow. This is a first for me. I've never heard this as a criterion. I have always believed that the protected fielder has the maximum benefit of the doubt when it comes to interference.

It's often been posted here that we don't wait to see the result of the interference before calling INT.

F3 bolts to her left on contact and runs hard into 1b coach. Ball lands next to the fence, maybe beyond F3's reach, maybe not, we'll never know.

I called INT (from my position at C) right after the collision, ball a little before or after its apex.

One p.o.'d coach... I lost no sleep on that one.

If you felt the catch was likely (or probable), that call would be correct. I've never been told the catch needs to be nearly certain. In fact, since the wording is nearly identical - we've been told to have the same expectation of a likely catch on this as we would in calling IFF.