I made an analogy. Why are you having trouble grasping what it is?

Then you are missing the point.

The runner was legally running the bases; she was then put out, and changed status to a retired runner.

The defensive player that was never in the act of fielding the ball, was simply ATTEMPTING to get to where she MIGHT have a chance to field the ball, was NEVER protected from obstruction; not while simply chasing, not while laying on the ground after obviously failing. Repeat; she was never in the act of actually fielding the batted ball, she has no protection from committing obstruction.

I had no trouble grasping your analogy. And thanks for not answering me.

More to the point ... what is the point of your argument? Are you trying to say that we are interpreting the rule incorrectly, or are you trying to say the rules should be something other than what they are ... or are you trying to say something else.

Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.

That's funny (or sad) because the definition of "OBSTRUCTION" begins with, "The act []." This is why I say umpires can't learn rules if they don't learn definitions.

Beyond that, people are defining "act" differently based on whether it is obstruction or interference.

I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

You are correct, and IMO, both calls were absolutely terrible and actually gives the defense a reason to go head-hunting. And let me know when you can find a rule to support those calls.

If you were posting here around that time, you would have seen how unanimously those calls were hailed as incorrect.

I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?

Unless there is something else contradicting this, "intent" is required with a thrown ball:

12.8.5 When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball,

interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

EFFECT—The ball is dead. The batter-runner is awarded first base unless

she is the player in violation. If the official scorer judges the

batted ball would have been a hit, the batter is credited with a

base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice. Each base

runner not forced by the batter-runner must return to the last

base legally touched at the time of the interference.

If the interference, in the umpire’s judgment, is an obvious

attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the base

runner is put out, the runner being played on shall also be called

out.

Incorrect. In no ruleset do you have to judge the intent of the thrower. You only have to judge the actions of the runner. If the runner's actions caused interference, you call it. Running straight toward the bag without deviating and getting hit by a throw is not interference. In any ruleset.

Well, let's not be too inclusive in that statement. If you "know" a fielder is throwing AT the runner, not a team mate, and the runner reaches up to defend themselves you have "intent" on both parties, but I'm not calling INT. :)