ah now thats good info. but DG says one way and Mr jenkins the opposite. which is corect?:confused:

kicked ball
 

I was watching the game, thought he kicked it intentionaly, saw the replay, he looks right at the ball, drags his foot and kicks it, probably to get it away from the catcher. Good call. IMO of course. And I'm for the home team.

i tried to find the situation on mlb.tv . during which inning did it happend ?

Guess I missed the OP? I see nothing about "immediately, nor "being at rest".
What I did see is; a BR called out when he didn't "intentionally" interfere.
If that ain't "blown", then it's called homer-n, protecting your kid on the team, or fix-n, oh wait, that's the NBA.

Honestly, the timing of events made the play "look intentional" from Umps view, I can't deny.

The play:
Swing and a miss, ball puked up off F2 towards first. I'm sure, blue was looking for the ball, saw the contact, then, when he looked up at the runner; he saw Beltre looking back and down at the now kicked ball, so assumed, Beltre was better than Pele with his feet. So guessed, or felt, or was led to believe, or was fooled into believing, weighed the evidence, whatever. He just either guessed wrong, or saw an opportunity for an out..
It was 7-0 at the time, getting late. Hey, in doubt, out, or you know the expected call.

From J/R:
A strike three blocked (not caught) by the catcher, and the batter-runner, starting his advance to first, unintentionally kicks the ball, or contacts the catcher who is trying to field the ball: neither case is interference...

From PBUC:
Play:
... Strike three not caught. Batter runner unintentionally kicks, touches, or otherwise deflects the pitched ball that was not caught by the catcher. Catcher is unable to make a play.
Ruling: If this occurs in the vicinity of home plate, the ball is alive and in play.
However, if this occurs up the first base line (where the batter-runner has had time to avoid the ball), interference is called..

The ball no doubt came from behind Beltre, as the OP stated. No way he saw it coming. It rolled between his feet and right into the path of his moving back foot. He carried it so nicely as he strided, I flashed back to my hackey sack playing days.
It certainly looked to the "un-whole pictured eye" to be intentional. But, I'm sure, like so many of the uniformed, Beltre/coaches/announcers, just assumed it was automatic, so no arguement. Had there been a confrontation, and had HPU gone for help, the call may very well have been, called correctly. But again 7-0 in the 8th or 9th, nah..

The uniformed Beltre/coaches/announcers? What uniforms? I guess I'm uniformed too, because it appeared to be an intentional act, and that's why Danley was emphatically signaling the out immediately. Do you really think he was just "homering." Sounds like you are a homer for the M's.