re: It’s interference. With visual evidence and the rule

quote:

---

You simply aren’t reading the rule. It’s very clear

---

Oh, I absolutely read it. But, I kept reading since, how does one define "interference"? The explanation in the article was very clear. At the CWS, the ruling is made in the favor of the DEFENSE (emphasis added) in the majority of the cases. Why?

Well, I take that to mean, how does the umpire "know" that the runner running inside the line isn't interfering with the fielder's line of sight, ability to throw etc. Most everyone is reading the rule as being black and white. It isn't. The article clearly states there is some subjectivity to the rule and that, at the CWS, the umpires almost always rule in favor of the defense.

From the article itself:
"Contact is not necessary between the runner and the fielder, but it certainly makes it a more obvious call for the umpires. The umpire may simply judge that the fielder did not have an opportunity to catch the ball as a result of the potential collision. It is generally accepted that a throw must be catchable in order to invoke this penalty, but umpires will side with the defense in this judgement more often than not if the runner was illegal running up the lane. The NCAA rule adds a clause which does not exist in the MLB rule book (Rule 5.09 (a) (11)) or the NFHS book ( Rule 8 Section 4 Article 1 (g)) which is “hinders or alters the throw of a fielder.” As a result, in NCAA a non-catchable throw could be more easily adjudged as interference by an umpire who believes that the position of the runner prevented or altered the fielder from making a catchable throw."