[mbyron]

I confess, I have not read every post in this thread word-for-word. Maybe if I had, then I would not have trouble locating the disagreement here.

1. Are we agreeing that interference with a thrown ball requires intent?

2. If so, then is the disagreement about the case in question over whether the batter intended to hit a thrown ball with a thrown bat so as to interfere?

From my skimming, it seems that one camp wants to say that you can't rule out that the batter intended to interfere because you can't read minds. That seems silly to me: if I want to interfere with a thrown ball, I'm going to find some other way to do so than to throw my bat at the ball!

We are, in fact, mind readers. How many times have you merely looked at a close friend or spouse and known instantly and without a word that something was dreadfully wrong? We read minds all the time, and it's a good thing too.

But to the case at hand: it's not plausible to think that a batter intended to interfere with a thrown ball by throwing a bat at it. Sorry, if intent is required to make an interference call here, I say play on.