Is this a correct ruling?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

My guess: He signalled Safe, which just so happens to be the same mechanic when there's a potential for interference but none is judged, so the OP assumed he was signalling for no interference.

Another possibility: He ruled there was no obstruction, and the OP mistakenly used the term "interference". But given the description of the play and the rule set you're playing under, obstruction was a possible call here.