Phils/Card 6/5: 3b Coach Interference?

[buckyswider]

http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=659802383&topic_id=8879974&width=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'

Hi all, don't know if that link will work...if so, the play isn't until 2:30.  Anyhow, R2 rounding third too far as coach goes into the baseline to stop him (that's not the issue).  Then the ball gets thrown to 3b, F5 with ball starts chasing the runner towards home, and coach jumps out of the way and F5 does a little maneuver to avoid the 3B coach.  3U immediately gives the safe sign.  R3 (formerly R2) gets caught in a rundown and is eventually tagged out.  However, in the interim, R1 has advanced to 3B and scores the walkoff run on the next single.

So the question is whether 3B coach is guilty of INT.  Broadcaster talk (BAHAHA) was that no contact occurred so no INT.  I would make the case that 6.01a(4) should apply as the coach "added to the difficultly" of  F5 making the play and should've been banged dead at the time.  

As far as my slanted view is concerned, this play SHOULD be INT.  Question is, based on current rules and interpretations, should it have been?

Here's another article with an animated gif of the thing going down....

 

http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/1021333

 

 

...aha, and here's a vine loop of the play.  

 

 

 

at 

What say you all??

 

Thanks!

[maven]

You can find a comprehensive treatment of this play on Gil's site.

TL;DR: No INT, correctly ruled on the field.

[buckyswider]

Thanks!  I concede that there's nothing in the book that would make this anything other than what called; wondering if Barnery Dreary et. al would have opined on this in the past.  IMH (and hopefully objective) O, the standard for INT for a coach should be much less in a play like this- akin to the "add to the difficulty of the fielder" as in 6.03(a)(4).