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

One of these was called interference and the other wasn’t. In the UF game, thatcher actually had a better angle to first and the UF runner was actually closer to the baseline. By the objective angles, the Alabama play was actually a more egregious interference than what was called one in the UF game.

For those saying the Alabama player didn’t impede the throw…. The ball doesn’t need to hit him and it doesn’t need to be a perfect throw for it to be interference. If, by the angle, it hypothetically impedes the throw then he’s out. The botched actual throw doesn’t change that.
It was interference…..case settled. Let’s all get on with our day