Mike - I was not trying to be difficult. In post #4, a specific question was asked and I addressed it. It had nothing to do with the video. I was then asked by another to reconsider the video and tell me what I would have. I don't see BI. As I stated at least twice now, consider the batter who squares and then is brushed back. He spins inwardly and his bat is contacted by the catcher who is tracking the pitch - that is CI. The OP has something similar. The title of the MLB video is...umpires misses interference call. I did not write that headline, an MLB employee did!
Dave - I cited J/R on the definition of a backswing - that is what UMPTTS43 referred to, remember? He provided no citation, while I did. Saying that OBR considers it as such is not a citation. I also reported J/R's ruling on CI. Further, I addressed the difference between an abandonment of a swing and a bunt, as well. If you can dispute J/R, please show us all. I am merely using the words from the current edition, not creating them.
As noted, if you wish to penalize the batter for this play, go ahead. I won't. That is not arrogance, it is a concession. I don't feel like repeating the same material ad nauseum and trying to convince you to make the same call. J/R states that the onus is on the catcher
unless the batter
INTENTIONALLY strikes the catcher with his bat while the catcher is on foul territory. Again, read J/R on page 117 and see for yourself. If you still disagree with Chris and Rick, call them. Rick loves discussing plays and giving advice. I have had several discussions with him and his knowledge of the game is amazing. I'm sure he will be happy to edit his book if you convince him he is wrong. He has done so in the past.
By the way, this is backswing interference:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=8272771