I blew this, but it took an inning to realize it
 

2-1 count to batter (weak batter). Next pitch, purposely high so catcher can make a play (very close to an out) on the lazy runner at first. After ball hits the glove, batter chops at the high pitch in obvious strike. Catcher stands high to grab the pitch, whips ball to first--safe there--and my partner obviously didn't see the VERY late swing by the batter because it was very late and the catcher stood high. Before the next pitch, PU announces the count as 3-1. I wait but nothing happens, and it is obvious to me my partner missed the swinging strike, so I called time, we had a conference, and we changed the count to 2-2 based upon my advice to him, and not because of any appeal....at the time, it felt right because we got it right, but then I got to thinking....No appeal was made, and I was wrong....it should have been on the defense to be game-aware and make the appeal.....Right?

sounds like good preventative umpiring to me. why have him walk on the next pitch and go through the discussion of what the count should be when you know? others will disagree with me on this...but oh well.

No, you are OK. This wasnt a check swing. If nothing else you were just making sure the count was right. But if you had an inkling that your partner didnt see the swing, then in my opinion, good umpiring on your part. If you were my partner, you would get an atta boy.:D

Whew! Thanks for the replies from both....makes me feel better...I felt we got it right, but then worried....I guess the key is, it WASN'T a check swing, now that you mention it.....Thanks....

This sounds like interference to me... Batters have been increasingly doing this (swinging after the pitch hits the mitt) to interfere with the catcher's throw and it should be called...

w/o seeing it, we don't know...but if there's no attempt to actually try to hit the pitch, yep, we've got BI here.

Swinging is what batters do. Swinging late, by itself, is not interference.

I definitely did not think of BI....I guess they could have had a hit and run sign on, and he could have tried (very late) to do his part, but it really looked more like a very poor hitter who just didn't have a clue...anyway, he didn't even come close to interfering...just a very poor chop at the ball....

Then why is the batter swinging after the ball is in the glove? Nobody over the age of 7 does this unintentionally.

Batters often do this to get in the catcher's way of his throw to make their interference look "natural."

Like I said above....I REALLY think the guy was a poor, very poor, hitter and player...late in the game, and his next couple of actions around the next pitches kinda proved it....I don't believe it was BI, and besides, he is allowed to swing at it...he's supposed to swing at it to help make the throw more difficult...he just can't interfere....which he didnt....

Ok, you would definitely know better since you were there if he was doing something intentional or not. His actions just sounded a little fishy to me when I read it.

Yes, he can swing at it, as long as he's making a legitimate attempt to hit the ball. He cannot, however, swing to "make the throw more difficult" AFTER THE BALL IS IN THE CATCHER'S MITT. He is no longer swinging to hit the ball, but swinging to intentionally interfere with the catcher's throw, which would be interference.

In regards to the OP. If grandma in the upperdeck knew the batter swung at the pitch, then I would correct the count. If there was any question, check swing, I would wait for the appeal. YMMV

Two questions you should ask yourself at the time you want to call time:

A) What makes your count more likely to be right than PU's?

B) How do you know PU didn't see the late swing?

For those who are tempted by the thought of BI here: Remember that nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- that the batter does BY ITSELF constitutes interference. Intent to be a nuisance does not violate the rules.

In order to call batter interference, there has to be some actual hindrance of the play. In this case, it doesn't sound as if there was any: F2 threw down to 1B just fine, and there was a close play there. So BI is the wrong call in the OP, if I'm reading it correctly.

Now, even if there's hindrance on this play, I'm leery about calling BI because the batter was doing what he was supposed to be doing, namely swinging at the pitch. I don't work much ball below HS varsity, so a late swing might be suspicious in my games; but a late swing by itself will not constitute BI.

You don't want to be the kind of umpire who shows off his knowledge of the rules by looking for situations to make unusual calls. Don't be a plumber.

Well, I agree with you if it was normal Batter's interference (swinging and falling out of the box across home for instance), but if the batter does something INTENTIONAL, you most likely need to call this if it remotely affects the play. This would be like R1 going into second on a DP and waving his hands in the air, but F6 gets the throw off cleanly. We all agree this is interference because of the INTENTIONAL act. If the batter is doing something INTENTIONAL (like swinging purposely late to screw up the catcher's throw), I view that as interference. Benefit of the doubt is going to F2.

I've called this when the batter swings AFTER my ball/strike call (and I have SLOW timing). This is pretty obvious to me that he's trying to interfere.

Conversely, I've had a batter try this on a pitch that was wayyy outside in the other batter's box and the bat in no way came close to hindering him and I had nothing in that instance.