interference--who would have called this the same way?

[greymule]

For example, in the scenario offered, if the fielder makes a clean play after the offensive players actions, they obviously didn't interfere with his ability to make the play. Any subsequent action stands on it's own merit.

I'm puzzled. If there's physical contact, we call interference even if the fielder makes a clean play. If Abel is on 2B and Baker hits a grounder to F6, don't we call Abel out for interference if he stands in front of F6 and waves his arms, even if F6 fields the ball and completes the play at 1B?

And just when is a runner or batter liable to be put out for USC? Abel gets a single. Ball goes back to the mound. Time out. Abel punches F3. Is Abel out as well as ejected?

Strike 2. Batter says, "F*** you!" Is he ejected and out?

If in these last two cases the runner or batter is out as well as ejected, then runners and batters are at particular risk (compared to fielders or on-deck batters) when they commit USC. If Abel is out at 3B and F5 punches him, F5 is ejected but Abel is still out. If Abel is safe at 3B and punches F5, Abel's status changes: he's out.

[Edited by greymule on Sep 5th, 2003 at 07:04 AM]