Interference rule application

Question
Hi Dr. Ambrose; I have question regarding an interference call made during a co-ed slow pitch softball game this past Saturday. The scenario: Runner on 1ST, 1 OUT.  Batter hits ground ball to pitcher; pitcher throws to second; force out.  NOW; runner from first veers to his right essentially abiding by the "get out of the way" rule. However, the shortstop also went across second base, subsequently arriving at the same spot as the runner which prevented the shortstop from being able to get a throw off.  The call was explained to the dissenting captain that the shortstop was prevented from completing a throw to first base by the runner, intentional or not.

As it is probably hard to make a call without seeing anything, so I would like to add the following perception which was agreed upon by the umpires, almost all the players, and all the spectators. The shortstop was trying to go wide to throw to the runners left side, while at the same exact time, the runner was making the decision to go to the right side to attempt to get out of the way.   

My question ultimately is; if you apply the mentioned perception (or not), what would your application of the rules be for this scenario?

Appreciate your time!

-Joe

Answer
Hi Joe,

Ah....the age old problem of what to do with the runner on an attempted DP.  I'm going to go with the proposed new rule that as soon as they see they are going to be out they must dive to the dirt face first, spread eagle and not move a muscle.

Since that isn't a practical solution, what standard must the runner meet on this play?  They must not commit an "act" to interfere, intent is not a factor.  There is no "get out of the way rule", written or unwritten that a good umpire looks for, it is the "act"

In your case R1 committed an act of interference by veering into the area F6 went to throw the ball.  Even though his intent was to get out of the way, intent doesn't matter.  Tough call for the offense and with the caveat I wasn't there, and interference is a judgment call, the call of interference here based on your facts is appropriate.

Mark