Is this a correct ruling?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

First... the ruling seems correct, assuming the appeal was obvious to the umpire (and it seems like it's obvious to me, but we're not there).

Second ... what does "ruled there was no interference" mean? A) What interference could there have possibly been for him to rule on and B) what did the umpire do or say to make you think that was what he was ruling on?

No problem with an obvious appeal, but I see nothing in the OP that says F3 was doing anything other than touching 1B in frustration.