Is it interference?

[greymule]

1. Intent is not necessary for BI, so telling F2 that the batter did not intentionally interfere doesn't answer his question. If the batter does something that interferes with the throw (and from your sitch it sounds as if he did), then we've got BI. Especially if he has stepped out over the plate (which is unclear from your account).

Yes, you're right about intent, and I meant to write that the batter did not actively interfere. He simply reacted to what was going on around him. It was an odd play. The batter lost a bit of his balance as he flinched at the inside pitch, and F2, already on the inside, shot up so quickly right next to him. But the batter never left the box or leaned out of it. In fact, I'm more suspicious of the second action of the batter—the bat-lifting flinch in response to F2's second pump—as possible INT. I know it's a HTBT, and I'm willing to admit that I might well have blown it.

So many of these kinds of plays are not cut and dried.

It appears greymule got away with a "do over" on this call but I doubt that works very often. I think you have to commit one way or the other if you're confronted with this.

I agree that by rule it has to be one or the other, so I guess I did get away with a "do over." The problem was that the play simply didn't seem to fit INT, and yet it also wasn't fair to penalize F2 (or, conversely, to reward the batter for being out of the box). If the runner had been stealing on the pitch and then the batter stepped back and got hit by F2's throw, then obviously it's BI. And if the timing had been more immediate, I'd also have gone with BI. But it was "ball 3" . . . click . . . batter steps backward . . . click . . . F2 suddenly throws. The play developed after the pitch, not as usual during the pitch. I think also that if F2's throw had had a chance to get the runner, I'd have been more inclined to call BI, but it was more a throw to keep the runner honest.

The plays I cited were both under OBR rules, incidentally.